Digestive diseases and sciences · 2018
Comparison of Small Versus Large Volume Split Dose Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Study of Colonoscopy Outcomes.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Siddiki Hassan, Ravi Sreya, Al-Qaisi Mohanad T, Fath Ayman R, Ramirez Francisco, Crowell Michael D, Pannala Rahul, Faigel Douglas O, Gurudu Suryakanth R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Split dose bowel preparations (SDP) have superior outcomes for colonoscopy as compared to evening before regimens. However, the association of the actual volume of the SDP to colonoscopy outcome measures has not been well studied.
AIMS: Compare adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SDR), mean bowel cleanse score, and predictors of inadequate exams between small volume SDP and large volume SDP.
METHODS: We have conducted a retrospective study in patients undergoing colonoscopy with small volume SDP versus large volume SDP between July 2014 and December 2014. Basic demographics (age, gender and BMI) along with clinical co-morbidities were recorded. Quality of the bowel preparation, ADR and SDR was compared between these groups. Univariate and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the determinants of inadequate exams in each group.
RESULTS: 1573 patients with split dose preparation were included in this retrospective study. 58.4% (920/1573) patients took small volume SDP. There was no difference in ADR (37.9 vs. 38.8%, p = 0.2); however, SDR was higher for small volume SDP compared to large volume SDP (11.9 vs. 7.9% p = 0.005). There was no difference in the rate of inadequate exams between the two groups (p = 0.7). A history of diabetes and constipation was associated with inadequate exams only in the small volume SDP.
CONCLUSIONS: SDR was higher in small volume SDP. There was no difference in rate of inadequate exams between the two groups. A history of diabetes and constipation was associated with inadequate exams only in patients with the small volume SDP.
AIMS: Compare adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SDR), mean bowel cleanse score, and predictors of inadequate exams between small volume SDP and large volume SDP.
METHODS: We have conducted a retrospective study in patients undergoing colonoscopy with small volume SDP versus large volume SDP between July 2014 and December 2014. Basic demographics (age, gender and BMI) along with clinical co-morbidities were recorded. Quality of the bowel preparation, ADR and SDR was compared between these groups. Univariate and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the determinants of inadequate exams in each group.
RESULTS: 1573 patients with split dose preparation were included in this retrospective study. 58.4% (920/1573) patients took small volume SDP. There was no difference in ADR (37.9 vs. 38.8%, p = 0.2); however, SDR was higher for small volume SDP compared to large volume SDP (11.9 vs. 7.9% p = 0.005). There was no difference in the rate of inadequate exams between the two groups (p = 0.7). A history of diabetes and constipation was associated with inadequate exams only in the small volume SDP.
CONCLUSIONS: SDR was higher in small volume SDP. There was no difference in rate of inadequate exams between the two groups. A history of diabetes and constipation was associated with inadequate exams only in patients with the small volume SDP.