Inadequate bowel preparation (BP) negatively affects diagnostic performance of colonoscopy. Most trials assessing adequacy of bowel preparation regimens have excluded patients affected by chronic kidney disease (CKD), especially patients on dialysis. This study aimed to assess the impact of dialysis on BP quality and adenoma detection rate (ADR) and identify factors related to quality of BP.

We retrospectively compared patient-specific, preparation-specific (preparation solution, preparation regimen (split-dose vs. 1-day preparation, outpatient preparation), and colonoscopy-specific data (indication, Boston Bowel Preparation Score [BBPS], sedation type, presence of adenoma or cancer) between 79 patients on dialysis and 158 matched controls. Adequate BP was defined as a BBPS score ≧2 in every colonic segment. Significant contributors to BP were assessed by logistic regression.

Despite matching, dialysis patients were significantly older (69.0 ± 11.9 vs 64.2 ± 14.6, P = 0.008) and less frequently women (30% vs 52%, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in BP or ADR between patients on dialysis and controls (85% vs 89%, P = 0.39 and 35% vs 35%, P = 1.00, respectively). Older age ( P = 0.03), lower body mass index ( P = 0.03), type of BP regimen ( P <0.001), outpatient preparation ( P = 0.03), and residency in residential care ( P = 0.05) were significantly associated with BP adequacy. According to the logistic regression model, split-dose regimen was the main predictor of adequate BP ( P <0.001, odds ratio 3.1 [1.65-5.81]).

Safe and adequate BP is achievable in dialysis patients. Bowel preparation regimen rather than treatment with dialysis influences BP quality. Split-dose preparation remains the most important determinant of adequate BP for colonoscopy, irrespective of regimen.

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has emerged as a promising alternative for investigating lower gastrointestinal symptoms. However, its adoption has been limited due to concerns about cost-effectiveness, significantly influenced by follow-up endoscopy rates (FERs). Understanding CCE's FERs is crucial for its integration into routine clinical practice. We synthesised the evidence to evaluate the overall rate of further investigation in CCE.

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Medline, Embase, and PubMed were searched through 15 August 2024.

Studies included reporting FERs after CCE, including subsequent endoscopic procedures and radiological imaging. There were no language restrictions or limitations in CCE referral indications, patient recruitment criteria, or pathologies investigated.

All studies were independently screened and extracted two times by four reviewers. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis and meta-regression to identify key contributing factors.

2850 participants from 19 studies were included in the analysis. Compared with the key performance indicators for FERs in colonoscopy (0.10-0.15) and CT colonography (0.25), the pooled FER for CCE was found to be 0.42 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.50). The meta-regression analysis identified complete transit rates and adequate bowel cleansing quality as factors inversely associated with FERs. Furthermore, the CCE2 capsule demonstrated a higher reinvestigation risk than CCE1, likely due to its improved diagnostic accuracy. Although CCE indications were associated with lower FERs, subgroup analysis did not reach statistical significance with high heterogeneity.

This study highlights significant FERs for CCE and identifies key contributing factors, emphasising the importance of appropriate patient selection to reduce reinvestigation needs. Future research should focus on improving completion rates, bowel preparation protocols, and refining CCE indications. This will minimise environmental impact and enhance cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction.

CRD42024567959.

Colonoscopy is essential for diagnosing and managing colorectal conditions, and is recognized as the gold standard for early cancer detection and removal of precancerous lesions. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Gastroenterology have established benchmark indicators to minimize the risk of interval colorectal cancer. Despite their importance, research on these metrics in Saudi Arabia is limited. This study analyzes key intraprocedural indicators of colonoscopies at a tertiary care center to evaluate adherence to care standards.

This retrospective study examined 3763 colonoscopies conducted by adult gastroenterologists at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare from January 2021 to December 2022. Procedures were categorized as screening and non-screening, with demographic data collected alongside withdrawal time (WT), cecal intubation rate (CIR), polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), polyp retrieval rate, rectal retroflexion, and adverse events.

The mean age of participants was 54.13 years, with 81.56% of them Saudis and 44.6% female. The average WT was 10 min. The overall CIR was 93.6% (94.78% for screening), with a PDR of 33.9% and a retrieval rate of 96.6%. ADR for screening participants was 25.63%, and 88.94% of participants achieved a BBPS score of 6 or more. The adverse event rate was at 0.2%, primarily due to bleeding.

The study indicates that colonoscopy procedures adhere to care standards, with ADR among male screening patients approaching 30%. Further research is necessary to evaluate pre- and post-procedural indicators.

The quality of bowel preparation has a significant impact on the success of colonoscopy. Currently, osmotically balanced polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG-E) solutions are most commonly used for bowel preparation. Recently, lubiprostone (LBP) has been considered a potentially effective adjunct to PEG. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LBP in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically screened PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for RCTs on LBP as an adjunct to PEG-E for improving bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy. Statistical analysis was performed on RevMan, using a random-effects model with the generic inverse variance method to address clinical heterogeneity; results were significant at p < 0.05. Outcomes were reported as relative risks and standard errors.

This meta-analysis included seven RCTs with 1206 patients. Adding LBP did not increase the likelihood of an excellent bowel preparation [RR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94-1.74, p = 0.12] or contribute to poor preparation [RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.36-1.04; p = 0.07]. It also did not affect procedure time [MD = -0.74, 95% CI: -2.91-1.43; p = 0.50], polyp detection rate [RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.90-1.26; p = 0.45], or adenoma detection rate [RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.75-1.57; p = 0.66].

Our meta-analysis found that LBP, explored as an adjunct to PEG-E solutions for bowel preparation, offers no significant additive effect on preparation quality before colonoscopy.

Aim: Endo-Wing™ is a soft silicone device with six wing-like projections attached at the end of the colonoscope that provides superior visualization by flattening the colonic fold and helps to maintain a central view of the colonoscope during withdrawal. This study aims to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between standard colonoscopy and Endo-Wing™-assisted colonoscopy. Methods: This is a single-center, single-blind, parallel-group, randomized, actively controlled, exploratory clinical trial conducted between July 2019 and April 2020. Participants aged 45 and above who were symptomatic of colorectal cancer (CRC) or with a history of adenoma and under active surveillance were included. Exclusion criteria included colonic strictures, tumors, active colitis, a previous history of polyposis syndrome, colostomy/ileostomy, or a BPPS score of 0. Participants were subsequently randomized to receive standard colonoscopy (n = 96) or Endo-Wing™-assisted colonoscopy (n = 96) at a 1:1 ratio using a central block randomization method with varying block sizes. The primary endpoint was the ADR, and the differences between the two groups were evaluated using univariable statistical methods. Results: The ADR, the number of adenomas, and the size of adenomas in the Endo-Wing™-assisted colonoscopy group were significantly higher compared to standard colonoscopy (p = 0.005, 0.035, and 0.035, respectively). Cecal intubation rates were similar in both groups (p > 0.999). The proportions of colonoscopy requiring increased sedation and standard sedation were similar in both groups (p = 0.613). No adverse effects of bleeding, perforation, and device dislodgement were reported in both groups. Conclusions: This study concludes that Endo-Wing™-assisted colonoscopy improves the ADR compared to standard colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for early detection and monitoring of colorectal cancer. Procedural effectiveness is dependent on optimal bowel preparation. Traditional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions are difficult to tolerate, whereas newer low-volume alternatives, including PEG with ascorbic acid and oral sulfate solutions (OSS), offer improved efficacy and tolerability. The meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSS compared to PEG for bowel preparation in colonoscopy.

Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception until June 2024. Only randomized controlled trials comparing OSS with PEG were included. Data was analyzed using R version 4.4.0 using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Twenty-one studies with 6346 participants met the inclusion criteria. OSS significantly improved adenoma detection (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%) and polyp detection rates (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%), and had a higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.50; p-value <0.01; I2 = 81%). PEG was associated with more sleep disturbances (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.82; p-value = 0.03; I2 = 0%). However, other adverse effects were similar between both solutions.

OSS demonstrated superior adenoma and polyp detection rates. When compared to PEG, patients utilizing OSS achieved higher BBPS scores. Data gleaned support enhanced cleansing efficacy and safety of OSS as a bowel preparation regimen.

Adequate bowel preparation is indispensable for high-quality colonoscopy. We have developed an ultralow-volume (500 mL) polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with other laxatives (sennoside, sodium picosulfate, and lactulose) and applied this regimen clinically to all patients with colonoscopy for 3 decades. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of this ultralow-volume bowel preparation regimen.

This single-center, retrospective study analyzed data from consecutive outpatients who underwent colonoscopy between January 2022 and December 2022. All the patients took sennoside (24 mg) two nights before, sodium picosulfate (75 mg) one night before, and 500 mL of PEG with lactulose (58.5 g) on the day of examination. Cleaning efficacy was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Adequate bowel preparation was defined as a total BBPS score ≥6, with all colon segments scoring ≥2.

Out of 862 patients with colonoscopy, 773 were eligible for this study, and the median age was 66 years. The adequate bowel preparation rate was 91.8% (710/773). Notably, the BBPS full score "9" was observed in 50.5% (390/773). The median cecal intubation time and examination time were 8 and 20 min, respectively. Only 3 patients vomited as a side effect. In the multivariate analysis, age ≥70 years, diabetes mellitus, and diverticula were significantly independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation.

Our established ultralow-volume (500 mL) PEG is safe and useful as a bowel preparation method.

Rural patients experience a higher incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer. Ensuring high-quality screening is essential to address these disparities.

To investigate whether socioecological determinants of health are associated with colonoscopy quality in rural Alabama.

Retrospective review.

Data across 3 rural hospitals in Alabama from August 2021 to July 2023.

We included adults (aged 18 years or older) who underwent screening or diagnostic colonoscopy and completed a validated survey that measures socioecological determinants of health.

Primary outcomes included bowel preparation quality, cecal intubation, and adenoma detection rate. We linked the survey responses to these quality metrics to identify factors associated with outcomes. Analyses included the χ 2 , Fisher exact, and Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum tests, with a p value of < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

The 84 patients surveyed were 66.7% men, 50.0% Black, and had a median age of 64 years. Optimal bowel preparation was present in 88.0%, successful cecal intubation was observed in 89.3%, and the overall adenoma detection rate was 45.8%. Patients with suboptimal bowel preparation described lower rates of internet access (60.0% vs 87.4%, p < 0.05), more difficulty in understanding written information (30.0% vs 1.4%, p < 0.05), and lacked a sense of responsibility for their health (30.0% vs 51.4%, p < 0.05) compared to those having optimal bowel preparation. Those with unsuccessful cecal intubations had lower physician trust (55.6% vs 73.3%, p < 0.05), whereas patients with successful cecal intubations were more confident in preventing health-related problems (53.3% vs 33.3%, p < 0.05) and had a more supportive social environment (72.0% vs 66.7%, p < 0.05).

Retrospective design and small sample size limiting multivariable analyses.

In rural Alabama, lower health literacy, internet access, and physician trust were associated with low-quality colonoscopy, whereas a higher patient sense of responsibility and a supportive social environment were associated with higher-quality metrics. These findings identify potential targets for improving colonoscopy quality in rural settings. See Video Abstract.

ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes rurales sufren una mayor incidencia y mortalidad por cáncer colorrectal. Garantizar un cribado de alta calidad es esencial para abordar estas disparidades.OBJETIVO:Investigar si los determinantes socioecológicos de la salud están asociados con la calidad de la colonoscopia en las zonas rurales de Alabama.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva.LUGAR:Datos a través de tres hospitales rurales en Alabama desde agosto de 2021 hasta julio de 2023.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron adultos (≥18 años) que se sometieron a colonoscopia de cribado o diagnóstica y completaron una encuesta validada que mide los determinantes socioecológicos de la salud.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados primarios incluyeron la calidad de la preparación intestinal, la canulazion cecal y la tasa de detección de adenomas. Vinculamos las respuestas de la encuesta a estas métricas de calidad para identificar factores asociados con los resultados. Los análisis incluyeron las pruebas χ2 , exacta de Fisher y de suma de rangos de Kruskal-Wallis, considerándose estadísticamente significativa una p < 0,05.RESULTADOS:Los 84 pacientes encuestados eran un 66,7% varones, un 50,0% de raza negra y tenían una edad media de 64 años. La preparación intestinal óptima estuvo presente en el 88,0%, el 89,3% tuvo canulazion cecales exitosas, y la tasa general de detección de adenomas fue del 45,8%. Los pacientes con una preparación intestinal subóptima describieron tasas más bajas de acceso a Internet (60,0% frente a 87,4%, p < 0,05), más dificultades para comprender la información escrita (30,0% frente a 1,4%, p < 0,05) y carecían de sentido de la responsabilidad por su salud (30,0% frente a 51,4%, p < 0,05) en comparación con los que tenían una preparación intestinal óptima. Los pacientes con canulaziones cecales fallidas tenían menos confianza en el médico (55,6% frente a 73,3%, p < 0,05), mientras que los pacientes con canulaziones cecales satisfactorias tenían más confianza en la prevención de problemas relacionados con la salud (53,3% frente a 33,3%, p < 0,05) y contaban con un entorno social más favorable (72,0% frente a 66,7%, p < 0,05).LIMITACIONES:El diseño retrospectivo y el pequeño tamaño de la muestra limitan los análisis multivariables.CONCLUSIÓN:En las zonas rurales de Alabama, la alfabetización sanitaria, el acceso a Internet y la confianza en el médico se asociaron con una colonoscopia de baja calidad, mientras que un mayor sentido de la responsabilidad del paciente y un entorno social de apoyo se asociaron con métricas de mayor calidad. Estos hallazgos identifican objetivos potenciales para mejorar la calidad de la colonoscopia en entornos rurales. (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) before colonoscopy remains a common problem. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the risk factors associated with IBP.

We searched multiple databases for studies that assessed risk factors for IBP after adjustment and reported the data as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model, and pooled adjusted odds ratios for risk factors reported in ≥ 3 studies were constructed.

One hundred fifty-four studies with 358,257 participants were included. We analyzed 48 unique risk factors. Sociodemographic predictors of IBP were Medicaid insurance, obesity, current tobacco use, age ≥ 65 years, Black race, low education level, male sex, and unmarried status. Comorbidity-related predictors of IBP were any psychiatric disease, cirrhosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥ 3, poor functional status, constipation, diabetes, previous abdominopelvic surgery, and hematochezia. Medication-related predictors of IBP were tricyclic antidepressants, antidepressants, opioids, nontricyclic antidepressants, and calcium channel blockers. Preparation/procedure-related predictors of IBP were brown liquid rectal effluent, any incomplete bowel preparation (BP) intake, lack of split-dose BP, increased BP-to-defecation interval, any nonadherence to dietary instructions, increased BP-to-colonoscopy interval, any BP intolerance, previous IBP, and inpatient status. Although afternoon colonoscopy was a predictor of IBP, subgroup analysis of prospective studies revealed no significant association.

Our meta-analysis focused on adjusted risk factors to provide precise estimates of the most important risk factors for IBP. Our findings could help develop a validated prediction model to identify high-risk patients for IBP, improve colonoscopy outcomes, reduce the need for repeat colonoscopies, and reduce associated healthcare costs.

large clinical trials and small real-world studies show that a 1-L polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid solution (1-L PEG-ASC) is an effective and safe bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Here, the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC was evaluated in a large cohort of patients in routine clinical practice in Spain.

a sub-analysis was performed in an observational, multicenter, retrospective study assessing the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC in adult patients undergoing a colonoscopy at ten centers in Spain. Cleansing quality was assessed with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, scores ≥ 6 with all segmental scores ≥ 2 were considered as adequate colon cleansing, and high-quality was considered as cleansing ≥ 8 or = 3 in the right colon. Polyp and adenoma detection rates, and adverse events were also assessed.

data were collected from 7,160 patients; 48.3 % were males, mean age was 58.0 and 33.6 % were ≥ 65 years old. Adequate overall bowel cleansing was achieved in 95.6 % of patients (95 % CI: 95.1-96.0 %), high quality cleansing in 74.4 % (95 % CI: 73.4-75.4 %) and high-quality right colon cleansing in 66.0 % (95 % CI: 64.9-67.1). The adequate overall cleansing rate was 97.0 % with a split-dose and 94.0 % with same-day regimen (p < 0.0001), and high-quality right colon cleansing was 69.0 % and 62.5 % (p < 0.0001), respectively. Colonoscopy was completed in 97.2 % of cases. A multivariate regression analysis revealed that an overnight split-dose regimen and age < 65 years were independent predictors of adequate bowel cleansing of the overall colon, age < 65 years and female gender were independent predictors of high quality (HQ) cleansing of the overall colon, and the three covariates were independent predictors of HQ cleansing of the right colon. At least one adverse event was experienced by 3.3 % of participants, with nausea (1.5 %) and vomiting (1.2 %) being the most frequent.

this sub-analysis confirmed 1-L PEG-ASC to be an effective and safe bowel cleansing preparation in a real world setting in Spain.

The compliance and timeliness of oral laxatives have always been the key factors restricting bowel preparation (BP). We have constructed a novel enhanced-educational content and process based on social software (SS) for BP to optimize these issues.

A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted at 13 hospitals in China from December 2019 to December 2020. A total of 1774 enrollees received standard instructions for BP and were randomly assigned (1:1) to the SS group (SSG) that received a smartphone-based enhanced-education strategy starting 4 h before colonoscopy or the control group (CG).

A total of 3034 consecutive outpatient colonoscopy patients were assessed for eligibility, and 1774 were enrolled and randomly assigned. Ultimately, data from 1747 (SSG vs CG: 875 vs 872) enrollees were collected. The BP adequacy rate was 92.22% (95% CI: 90.46-93.98) in the SSG vs 88.05% (95% CI: 85.91-90.18) in the CG (P = 0.005), and the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores (6.89 ± 1.15 vs 6.67 ± 1.15, P < 0.001) of those in the SSG were significantly higher than those in the CG. The average number of polyps detected in the SSG was considerably higher than that in the CG (0.84 ± 2.00 vs 0.53 ± 1.19, P = 0.037), and the average diameter of the polyps was significantly lower than that of the control group (4.0 ± 2.5 vs 4.9 ± 3.7, P < 0.001).

This SS-enhanced education strategy can improve the BP adequacy rate and increase the average number of polyps detected, especially those of small diameter.

The performance of bowel preparation (BP) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) is unknown.

To evaluate the operating properties of instruments used to assess BP quality in patients with CD.

We used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, modified Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, Harefield Cleansing Scale, Food and Drug Administration Bowel Cleansing Assessment Scale (BCAS), and a 100-mm visual analogue scale of bowel cleanliness to assess BP quality in 50 videos from 40 patients with CD. We assessed endoscopic activity with the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD). Assessments were on endoscope insertion and withdrawal. Reliability was quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We assessed validity by within-patient correlation between instruments and the visual analogue scale using mixed-effect models. The correlation between BP quality and SES-SD scores was assessed using Spearman's rho.

Inter- and intra-rater reliability for all BP quality instruments was substantial (ICC ≥0.61) except for the Food and Drug Administration BCAS on insertion (inter-rater reliability ICC ≥0.41). The visual analogue scale had substantial inter- and almost perfect (ICC ≥0.81) intra-rater reliability. Correlation coefficients for the validity of the instruments exceeded 0.58. BP quality and endoscopic disease activity scores in the colon were negatively correlated.

Most existing instruments reliably assess BP quality in patients with CD. These results support the use of these instruments in clinical practice, provide a framework for scoring BP quality in CD clinical trials, and support evaluation of novel BP agents in patients with CD.

Screening colonoscopy and polypectomy are the cornerstone in decreasing the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Despite the low incidence of colorectal cancer in India, there has been a rising trend in the incidence of colonic polyps and cancer over the last decade. It is, hence, imperative that we are well equipped in the management of colonic polyps. Adequate training in the detection and characterization of polyps to aid in their management is necessary. Detection of polyps can be increased by adhering to the standards of colonoscopy, including good bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, adequate withdrawal time and use of distal attachment devices. A detected polyp needs optimal characterization to predict histology in real time and decide on the management strategies. Characterization of the polyps requires high-definition-white light endoscopy and/or image-enhanced endoscopy (dye based or digital). Various factors that help in predicting histology include size, location and morphology of the polyp and the pit pattern, vascular and surface pattern of the polyp. Polyps can be differentiated as neoplastic or non-neoplastic with reasonable accuracy with the above features. Prediction of advanced pathology including high-grade dysplasia and deep sub-mucosal invasion is essential, as it helps in deciding if the lesion is amenable to endotherapy and the technique of endoscopic resection. Adequate training in image-enhanced endoscopy is necessary to assess advanced pathology in polyps. Technology pertaining to image-enhanced endoscopy includes narrow banding imaging and blue laser imaging; newer variations are being introduced every few years making it necessary to be abreast with growing information. The recent advances in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy with the advent of endocytoscopy and artificial intelligence seem promising and are predicted to be the future of GI endoscopy.

Colorectal cancer is one of the predominant tumors in the world, primarily generated by a progression from polyp to cancer which can last several years, giving a great opportunity to the scientific community for its prevention by screening programs that can be done with invasive and non-invasive tests. In this issue, Lopes et al show us an excellent review of screening, its options, its advantages and disadvantages.

Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening.

Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models.

35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists.

Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.

Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

The effectiveness of colonoscopy is limited by the adequacy of bowel preparation. Nurses are essential in providing bowel cleansing agents and instructions for hospitalized patients before colonoscopy. This study aims to assess and improve the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy. Participants were asked to complete the survey before and after completing an educational module. The module and survey questions were placed in the NetLearning environment of the hospital intranet. A minimum post-test score of 80% was required to pass the course. A total of 1,107 nurses participated in the survey. Overall, the average score improved from 87% to 93% after the module (p < .0495). Knowledge of the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents improved from 54.3% to 83.6% (p = .0001). Only 56.2% of nurses knew how to carry out a split-dose bowel preparation regimen, which increased to 80.1% after the educational module (p = .0001). Nurses' knowledge about the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents before colonoscopy and the split-dose regimen is inadequate. A simple online educational module significantly improved the knowledge of nurses 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.

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).

Up to 50% of people scheduled for screening colonoscopy do not complete this test and no studies have focused on minority and low-income populations. Interventions are needed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, reduce barriers, and provide alternative screening options. Patient navigation (PN) and tailored interventions increase CRC screening uptake, however there is limited information comparing their effectiveness or the effect of combining them.

Compare the effectiveness of two interventions to increase CRC screening among minority and low-income individuals who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointment-a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone versus the mailed DVD plus telephone-based PN compared to usual care.

Patients (n = 371) aged 45-75 years at average risk for CRC who did not attend a screening colonoscopy appointment were enrolled and were randomized to: (i) a mailed tailored DVD; (ii) the mailed DVD plus phone-based PN; or (iii) usual care. CRC screening outcomes were from electronic medical records at 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to study intervention effects.

Participants randomized to tailored DVD plus PN were four times more likely to complete CRC screening compared to usual care and almost two and a half times more likely than those who were sent the DVD alone.

Combining telephone-based PN with a mailed, tailored DVD increased CRC screening among low-income and minority patients who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointments and has potential for wide dissemination.

The efficacy of texture and color enhancement imaging (TXI) in the novel light-emitting diode endoscopic system for polyp detection has not been examined. We aimed to evaluate the noninferiority of the additional 30-second (Add-30-s) observation of the right-sided colon (cecum/ascending colon) with TXI compared with narrow band imaging (NBI) for detecting missed polyps.

We enrolled 381 patients ≥40 years old who underwent colonoscopy from September 2021 to June 2022 in 3 institutions and randomly assigned them to either the TXI or NBI groups. The right-sided colon was first observed with white light imaging in both groups. Second, after reinsertion from hepatic flexure to the cecum, the right-sided colon was observed with Add-30-s observation of either TXI or NBI. The primary endpoint was to examine the noninferiority of TXI to NBI using the mean number of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions per patient. The secondary ones were to examine adenoma detection rate, adenoma and sessile serrated lesions detection rates, and polyp detection rates in both groups.

The TXI and NBI groups consisted of 177 and 181 patients, respectively, and the noninferiorities of the mean number of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions per patients in the second observation were significant (TXI 0.29 [51/177] vs NBI 0.30 [54/181], P < 0.01). The change in adenoma detection rate, adenoma and sessile serrated lesions detection rate, and polyp detection rate for the right-sided colon between the TXI and NBI groups were not different (10.2%/10.5% [ P = 0.81], 13.0%/12.7% [ P = 0.71], and 15.3%/13.8% [ P = 0.71]), respectively.

Regarding Add-30-s observation of the right-sided colon, TXI was noninferior to NBI.

For high-quality colonoscopies, adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite, closely associated with the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety of colonoscopy. Although popular-science short videos can help people quickly access health information, the overall quality of such short videos as a source of health information regarding bowel preparation before colonoscopy is unclear. Therefore, we intend to conduct a cross-sectional study to investigate the quality of bowel preparation information before colonoscopy through short videos taken on TikTok and Bilibili.

The Chinese phrases "colonoscopy" and "bowel preparation" were used as keywords to search for and screen the top 100 videos in the comprehensive rankings on TikTok and Bilibili. The Global Quality Score (GQS) and the modified DISCERN score were used to assess the quality of the information provided in these short videos.

A total of 186 short videos were included in this study; 56.5% of them were posted by health professionals, whereas 43.5% of them were posted by nonhealth professionals. The overall quality of these videos was unsatisfactory, with a median DISCERN score of 3 (2-4) and a median GQS of 3 (3-4). The radar maps showed that videos posted by gastroenterologists had higher completeness scores regarding outcomes, management, and risk factors, while nongastroenterologists had higher completeness scores concerning adverse effects, symptoms, and definitions of bowel preparation. Additionally, the median DISCERN score and GQS of the videos posted by gastroenterologists were 3 (3-4) and 3 (3-4), respectively, whereas the quality of the videos posted by patients was the worst, with a median DISCERN score of 2 (1-2) and a median GQS of 2 (1.25-3).

In conclusion, the overall quality of health information-related videos on bowel preparation before colonoscopy posted on specified short video platforms was not satisfactory. Gastroenterologists provide more information on the outcomes, management, and risk factors for bowel preparation before colonoscopy, while nongastroenterologists focus on adverse effects, symptoms, and definitions of bowel preparation.

Adequate bowel preparation quality is essential for high-quality colonoscopy according to the current guidelines. However, the excellent effect of bowel preparation on adenoma/polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) remained controversial.

During the period from December 2020 to August 2022, a total of 1566 consecutive patients underwent colonoscopy by an endoscopist. Their medical records were reviewed. According to the Boston bowel preparation scale, patients were divided into excellent, good, and poor bowel preparation quality groups. ADR/PDR, diminutive ADR/PDR, small ADR/PDR, intermediate ADR/PDR, large ADR/PDR, and number of adenomas/polyps were compared among them. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors that were significantly associated with ADR/PDR.

Overall, 1232 patients were included, of whom 463, 636, and 133 were assigned to the excellent, good, and poor groups, respectively. The good group had a significantly higher ADR/PDR (63% vs 55%, P = .015) and a larger number of adenomas/polyps (2.5 ± 3.2 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .030) than the poor group. Both ADR/PDR (63% vs 55%, P = .097) and number of adenomas/polyps (2.2 ± 2.8 vs 2.0 ± 2.8, P = .219) were not significantly different between excellent and poor groups. The excellent (9% vs 4%, P = .045) and good (9% vs 4%, P = .040) groups had a significantly higher intermediate ADR/PDR than the poor group. Logistic regression analyses showed that either good (odds ratio [OR] = 1.786, 95% CI = 1.046-3.047, P = .034) or excellent (OR = 2.179, 95% CI = 1.241-3.826, P = .007) bowel preparation quality was independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with poor bowel preparation quality. Excellent (OR = 1.202, 95% CI = 0.848-1.704, P = .302) bowel preparation quality was not independently associated with a higher ADR/PDR compared with good bowel preparation quality.

The pursuit of excellence in bowel preparation does not show an association with increased ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps compared with a good level. In addition, our study further contributes to the existing evidence that poor bowel preparation compromises ADR/PDR and number of adenomas/polyps.

Colonoscopy is a crucial procedure for various clinical purposes, including screening for colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for its success. Poor bowel preparation can lead to bad outcomes. An objective assessment of bowel preparation quality is typically only possible after the colonoscope is inserted. This study aimed to objectively correlate the clarity of last rectal effluent, directly collected in a transparent container, with the quality of bowel preparation, and compare it with patient-reported descriptions.

This prospective, single-centre, case-control study obtained ethical clearance and included patients aged >18 years undergoing colonoscopies. Cases included patients who collected the last rectal effluent and took photographs, while controls relied on verbal descriptions. Data collected included demographics, clinical information, bowel preparation quality, and lastly, stool clarity. A statistical analysis was performed to identify correlations and associations.

Of the 70 included patients, 45 were male. The mean age was 35.8 ± 14.3 years. Cases had a higher mean age (37.8 ± 14.6). A higher number of cases had comorbidities (11, 68.8%). Photographic recording of the last rectal effluent was not associated with the adequacy of bowel preparation. Thin yellow fluid was the most common last-rectal effluent clarity (33, 47.1%). Thin, clear fluid was significantly associated with adequate bowel preparation.

Objective assessment of last rectal effluent clarity correlates with the quality of bowel preparation. This can improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopies and potentially reduce the need for repeat procedures, contributing to better patient outcomes and cost savings in healthcare systems.

Prior studies have identified predictors of inadequate preparation with limited success. We aimed to build a model that could predict the likelihood of inadequate preparation by also including factors related to the patient's reaction to drinking the laxative preparation.

Demographic, clinical, and preparation-related data were prospectively collected on patients undergoing colonoscopy. An inadequate preparation was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale < 6. Statistical analyses were performed to identify predictors of inadequate preparation and create a predictive model.

324 patients were included (age 67 +/- 14 years, 52% male). 77 (23.7%) had inadequate preparations. Diabetes (p < 0.001), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (p < 0.001), incomplete prep consumption (p = 0.007), high school level education and above (p < 0.001), use of Bisacodyl (p = 0.005), >10 bowel movements (p = 0.02), and use of Sodium Picosulfate or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution (2L) compared to PEG 3L (p < 0.001) were significant variables. In a multivariate analysis, prior CVA increased the risk for inadequate preparation (OR = 4.8, CI 1.6-14.5), whereas high school level education and above (OR = 0.4, CI 0.2-0.8), consumption of Bisacodyl (OR = 0.4, CI 0.2-0.8), >10 bowel movements (OR = 0.5, CI 0.3-0.9), and use of Sodium Picosulfate (OR = 0.5, CI 0.3-0.9) decreased the risk for inadequate prep. Using these, a predictive model for patients likely to have an inadequate colon preparation was created with an area under the curve of 0.74 (35% sensitivity, 90% specificity at a cutoff point of 39%).

Given the low sensitivity, this predictive model does not appear ready for clinical use. However, due to its high specificity, it may be helpful in high-risk, sicker populations by preventing inadequately prepped procedures.

Bowel 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.

The 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).

The 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).

A 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.

ISRCTN32724024 (Registration date:22/08/2018).

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.

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.

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).

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.

Low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) reduces the dosage of colonoscopic bowel preparation (BP) solution, but is still poorly tolerated. Adding laxatives to the BP solution reduces the volume of fluid required, without affecting quality. This study aimed to compare 1 L PEG-Asc plus 24 mg senna (1L-PEG/AS) and conventional 2 L PEG-Asc (2L-PEG/A) regimens on BP quality and patient tolerability.

A single-center, randomized, investigator-blinded, noninferiority trial was performed between June and August 2022. Outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to the 1L-PEG/AS or 2L-PEG/A group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to evaluate BP quality. Adverse events and tolerability were surveyed using questionnaires.

Overall, 344 patients received 1L-PEG/AS or 2L-PEG/A regimens. The baseline characteristics and adverse events of the two groups were comparable. The 1L-PEG/AS group showed noninferior adequate BP rates compared with the 2L-PEG/A group (88% vs. 89%, P = 1.00); overall BBPS was 7.1 ± 1.5 and 7.2 ± 1.5, respectively (P = 0.39). Higher willingness to repeat the BP was observed in the 1L-PEG/AS group (85% vs. 62%, P < 0.01).

The 1L-PEG/AS regimen was comparable to the 2L-PEG/A regimen in terms of BP adequacy, requiring lower BP solution volumes, with better patient tolerance. Thus, it may be a suitable alternative to the conventional BP solution for colonoscopy. The Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT1051220043).

Background and study aims Effective bowel cleansing is critical for detecting lesions during colonoscopy, highlighting the importance of bowel preparations. 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbate (Asc) is the only recommended 1L PEG product in Europe and the United States. Its efficacy was demonstrated in large-scale controlled trials and confirmed in smaller-scale real-world studies. However, no large-scale real-world data exist. Patients and methods This observational, retrospective, multicenter study, used outpatient follow-up data from medical records from 10 centers in Spain and two in Portugal. Outpatients aged ≥18 years using 1L PEG + Asc as bowel preparation were included. The main outcome measures were overall adequate colon cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score ≥6 with BBPS score ≥2 in each segment) and high-quality cleansing of the right colon (BBPS score=3). Results Data from 13169 eligible patients were included. Overall cleansing success was achieved in 89.3% (95%CI 88.7%-89.8%) and high-quality cleansing in the right colon in 49.3% (95%CI 48.4%-50.2%) of patients. For the overnight split-dose and same-day regimens, overall adequate quality cleansing success rate was 94.7% and 86.7% ( P <0.0001) and high-quality cleansing of the right colon rate was 65.4% and 41.4% ( P <0.0001), respectively. Colonoscopy was completed in 97.3% of patients, with non-completion due to poor preparation in only 0.8%; 2.3% of patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE). Conclusions This large-scale, real-world study demonstrates the effectiveness of 1L PEG + Asc in the total and right colon, with a low percentage of patients with AEs in routine clinical practice.

An optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy is essential to increasing the quality of the examination. Visual booklets have been proposed with conflicting results to enhance bowel preparation. A literature search was performed in March 2023 in the most important databases. Only RCTs were selected. We calculated odd ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes. Mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) were used for continuous outcomes. We estimated heterogeneity with the Chi2 and the I2 statistics. In cases of high heterogeneity, a random effect model was used. Six studies were selected, enrolling 1755 patients overall. Adequate bowel preparation was observed in 86.7% of the booklet group versus 77.5% of the control group, with an OR = 2.31 in favor of the booklet. In studies using a 4-L PEG-based preparation, no difference compared to controls was observed, while in non-PEG formulations, preparation with booklets was better than in controls (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 1.82-14.27, p = 0.002). Two studies were performed in an inpatient setting without any differences between booklets and controls, while outpatients receiving booklets had better results (OR = 7.13, 95% CI 5.39-9.45, p < 0.001). The adenoma detection rate was similar between the two groups. In conclusion, booklets are useful to improve bowel preparation. Outpatient settings and preparations not containing PEG could benefit more from booklets.

Our objective was to determine whether the clinical focus of gastroenterology practice would affect screening colonoscopy quality metrics, specifically adenoma detection (AD). In a retrospective study of screening colonoscopies, gastroenterologists were categorized based on their clinical subspecialty focus into general/motility, hepatology, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and interventional endoscopy. The primary outcome was AD with a secondary outcome of adenoma and/or sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection (AD + SSP). A total of 5271 (male: 49.1%) complete colonoscopies were performed between 2010 and 2020 by 16 gastroenterologists (male: 62.5%, general/motility specialists: 3, hepatologists: 3, IBD specialists: 4, interventional endoscopists: 6). The AD and AD + SSP rate between each specialty focus were 27.5% and 31.0% for general/motility, 31.4% and 35.5% for hepatology, 38.4% and 43.6% for IBD, and 37.5% and 43.2% for interventional endoscopy. In regression analysis, patient's male gender (odds ratios [OR]: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.60-2.05, P < .001), longer withdrawal time (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.14-1.18, P < .001), hepatologist (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-1.53, P = .029), IBD subspecialist (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.30-1.98, P < .001), and interventional endoscopist (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.13-1.64, P < .001) were independently associated with AD. Moreover, patient's male gender (OR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.45-1.85, P < .001), acceptable bowel preparation (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.06-1.56, P = .010), withdrawal time (1.20, 95% CI: 1.18-1.22, P < .001), hepatologist (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.07-1.59, P = .008), IBD subspecialist (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.39-2.12, P < .001), interventional endoscopist (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.20-1.72, P < .001) were independent factors that improved detection of AD + SSP. Subspecialty focus of practice was an important factor in AD rate along with the male gender of the patient, bowel preparation, and withdrawal time.

Surveillance after prior colon polyps is the most frequent indication for colonoscopy in older adults. However, to our knowledge, the current use of surveillance colonoscopy, clinical outcomes, and follow-up recommendations in association with life expectancy, factoring in both age and comorbidities, have not been studied.

To evaluate the association of estimated life expectancy with surveillance colonoscopy findings and follow-up recommendations among older adults.

This registry-based cohort study used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) linked with Medicare claims data and included adults in the NHCR who were older than 65 years, underwent colonoscopy for surveillance after prior polyps between April 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, and had full Medicare Parts A and B coverage and no Medicare managed care plan enrollment in the year prior to colonoscopy. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to March 2021.

Life expectancy (<5 years, 5 to <10 years, or ≥10 years), estimated using a validated prediction model.

The main outcomes were clinical findings of colon polyps or colorectal cancer (CRC) and recommendations for future colonoscopy.

Among 9831 adults included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 73.2 (5.0) years and 5285 (53.8%) were male. A total of 5649 patients (57.5%) had an estimated life expectancy of 10 or more years, 3443 (35.0%) of 5 to less than 10 years, and 739 (7.5%) of less than 5 years. Overall, 791 patients (8.0%) had advanced polyps (768 [7.8%]) or CRC (23 [0.2%]). Among the 5281 patients with available recommendations (53.7%), 4588 (86.9%) were recommended to return for future colonoscopy. Those with longer life expectancy or more advanced clinical findings were more likely to be told to return. For example, among patients with no polyps or only small hyperplastic polyps, 132 of 227 (58.1%) with life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return for future surveillance colonoscopy vs 940 of 1257 (74.8%) with life expectancy of 5 to less than 10 years and 2163 of 2272 (95.2%) with life expectancy of 10 years or more (P < .001).

In this cohort study, the likelihood of finding advanced polyps and CRC on surveillance colonoscopy was low regardless of life expectancy. Despite this observation, 58.1% of older adults with less than 5 years' life expectancy were recommended to return for future surveillance colonoscopy. These data may help refine decision-making about pursuing or stopping surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with a history of polyps.

Development of bowel preparation products has been based upon colon cleansing rating by a local endoscopist. It is unclear how bowel preparation scales perform when centrally evaluated.

To evaluate the reliability of bowel preparation quality scales when assessed by central readers.

Four central readers evaluated 52 videos in triplicate, 2 weeks apart, during the entire endoscopic procedure (insertion/withdrawal of the colonoscope) and exclusively on colonoscope withdrawal using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), Chicago Bowel Preparation scale, Harefield Cleansing Scale, Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPQS), Aronchick score, a visual analogue scale, and additional items proposed in a modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness process. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients.

Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) for inter-rater reliability of the quality scales ranged from 0.51 to 0.65 (consistent with moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability) during the entire procedure. Corresponding intraclass correlation coefficients for intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 (consistent with substantial intra-rater reliability). Reliability was highest in the right colon and lowest in the left colon. No differences were observed in reliability when assessed for the procedure overall (insertion/withdrawal) relative to assessment on withdrawal alone.

All five bowel preparation quality scales had moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability. Panelists considered the Aronchick score too simplistic for clinical trials and recognized that assessment of residual fluid in the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale was not amenable to central assessment.

Optimal bowel preparation is a prerequisite for a successful colonoscopy; however, the rate of inadequate bowel preparation remains relatively high. In this study, we establish a smartphone app that assesses patient bowel preparation using an artificial intelligence (AI)-based prediction system trained on labeled photographs of feces in the toilet and evaluate its impact on bowel preparation quality in colonoscopy outpatients. We conduct a prospective, single-masked, multicenter randomized clinical trial, enrolling outpatients who own a smartphone and are scheduled for a colonoscopy. We screen 578 eligible patients and randomize 524 in a 1:1 ratio to the control or AI-driven app group for bowel preparation. The study endpoints are the percentage of patients with adequate bowel preparation and the total BBPS score, compliance with dietary restrictions and purgative instructions, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate (secondary). The prediction system has an accuracy of 95.15%, a specificity of 97.25%, and an area under the curve of 0.98 in the test dataset. In the full analysis set (n = 500), adequate preparation is significantly higher in the AI-driven app group (88.54 vs. 65.59%; P < 0.001). The mean BBPS score is 6.74 ± 1.25 in the AI-driven app group and 5.97 ± 1.81 in the control group (P < 0.001). The rates of compliance with dietary restrictions (93.68 vs. 83.81%, P = 0.001) and purgative instructions (96.05 vs. 84.62%, P < 0.001) are significantly higher in the AI-driven app group, as is the rate of additional purgative intake (26.88 vs. 17.41%, P = 0.011). Thus, our AI-driven smartphone app significantly improves the quality of bowel preparation and patient compliance.

Video 1Use of a novel, on-demand overtube to perform a targeted right colonic enema and improve suboptimal bowel preparation.