scholarly journals Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Children: 1 Day PEG-3350 with Bisacodyl versus 3 Day Sennosides

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 334-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Engin Tutar ◽  
Nevzat Aykut Bayrak ◽  
Burcu Volkan ◽  
Deniz Ertem
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Daily Activities ◽  
Patient Comfort ◽  
Major Adverse Event ◽  
Biochemical Abnormality ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Blinded Study ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate ◽  
Ottawa Scale

Background and Objectives: Bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy is a challenging procedure in children and different regimens have been used for this purpose. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the most preferred agent in recent years. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 1-day PEG-3350 with bisacodyl (PEG-B) and comparing it with 3-day sennosides A+B. Method: In this prospective, randomized, and single-blinded study, children aged 2–18 years were included in the PEG-B group for 1 day or in Senna group for 3 days. The effectiveness of BP was assessed according to the Ottawa and Boston BP scales, compliance and adverse effects were also recorded. Pre- and post-preparation biochemistry were obtained for investigation of safety of both regimens. Results: Successful BP was observed in 88.3% (n = 53/60) of PEG-B and 86% (n = 55/64) of Senna groups according to Boston scale, and it was 85% (n = 51/60) and 84.4% (n = 54/64), respectively, according to Ottawa scale. The cecal intubation rate was 96.7% (n = 58/60) in the PEG-B group and 93.8% (n = 60/64) in the Senna group. Ease of administration and disturbance in regular daily activities was better in the PEG-B group (p < 0.05). There was no major adverse event and biochemical abnormality in both groups. The correlation between Ottawa and Boston scales was found to be excellent (r2 = –0.954, p < 0.01). Conclusions: The efficacy, safety, and adverse effect profile of 1-day BP with PEG-B regimen was found to be similar to 3-day sennosides regimen, however, the PEG-B regimen had advantages such as short duration, ease of administration, and better patient comfort. Also, high correlation rate between the Boston and Ottawa scales in pediatric patients was remarkable.

scholarly journals Colonoscopy quality across Europe: a report of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (10) ◽  
pp. E1456-E1462
Author(s):  
Cristiano Spada ◽  
Anastasios Koulaouzidis ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Pedro Amaro ◽  
Anurag Agrawal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Withdrawal Time ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background and study aims The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group comprises expert colonoscopists and investigators with the aim of raising colonoscopy standards. We assessed the levels of monitoring and achievement of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures (PMs) across Europe using responses to the ECQI questionnaires. Methods The questionnaire comprises three forms: institution and practitioner questionnaires are completed once; a procedure questionnaire is completed on multiple occasions for individual total colonoscopies. ESGE PMs were approximated as closely as possible from the data collected via the procedure questionnaire. Procedure data could provide rate of adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time, polyp detection rate (PDR), and tattooing resection sites. Results We evaluated ECQI questionnaire data collected between June 2016 and April 2018, comprising 91 practitioner and 52 institution questionnaires. A total of 6445 completed procedure forms were received.Institution and practitioner responses indicate that routine recording of PMs is not widespread: adenoma detection rate (ADR) is routinely recorded in 29 % of institutions and by 34 % of practitioners; PDR by 42 % and 47 %, CIR by 62 % and 64 %, bowel preparation quality by 56 % and 76 %, respectively.Procedure data showed a rate of adequate bowel preparation of 84.2 %, CIR 73.4 %, PDR 40.5 %, mean withdrawal time 7.8 minutes and 12.2 % of procedures with possible removal of a non-pedunculated lesion ≥ 20 mm reporting tattooing. Conclusions Our findings clearly show areas in need of quality improvement and the importance of promoting quality monitoring throughout the colonoscopy procedure.

scholarly journals Antispasmodic drugs in colonoscopy: a review of their pharmacology, safety and efficacy in improving polyp detection and related outcomes

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Santosh Sanagapalli ◽  
Kriti Agnihotri ◽  
Rupert Leong ◽  
Crispin John Corte
Keyword(s):  
Patient Comfort ◽  
Peppermint Oil ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Hyoscine Butylbromide ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Cecal Intubation Time ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate ◽  
Ammonium Compounds

Antispasmodic drugs are cheap, effective and generally safe. They may improve outcomes in colonoscopy, however their use has not been consistent or widespread. This manuscript reviews the three most commonly used antispasmodics in colonoscopy, namely, hyoscine butylbromide (and related ammonium compounds), glucagon and peppermint oil. The pharmacology, action and safety of the agents, as well as the evidence for them improving colonoscopic outcomes will be discussed. In addition to polyp detection, other colonoscopic outcome endpoints of interest include cecal and ileal intubation, and patient comfort. The drugs studied were all found to be effective gastrointestinal antispasmodics with good safety profiles. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether antispasmodics improve cecal intubation rate, predominantly because the baseline rates are already high. Antispasmodics probably have efficacy in reducing cecal intubation time especially in those with marked colonic spasm. Antispasmodics do not offer significant benefit in polyp detection or improving patient comfort during colonoscopy. Future studies should focus on inexperienced colonoscopists as well as those with marked colonic spasm, in whom the greatest benefit seems to lie.

scholarly journals A117 PROPOFOL SEDATION DOES NOT IMPROVE MEASURES OF COLONOSCOPY QUALITY – FINDINGS FROM THE SOUTHWEST ONTARIO COLONOSCOPY COHORT

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 97-98
Author(s):  
M Sey ◽  
B Yan ◽  
Z Hindi ◽  
M Brahmania ◽  
J C Gregor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Detection Rate ◽  
Conscious Sedation ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Polyp Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Propofol Sedation ◽  
Serrated Polyp ◽  
Polyp Detection Rate ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate ◽  
Colonoscopy Quality

Abstract Background The use of propofol during colonoscopy has gained increased popularity due to deeper anesthesia compared to conscious sedation. Prior studies examining the use of propofol sedation during colonoscopy have primarily focused on anesthesia outcomes. Whether propofol sedation is associated with improvements in colonoscopy outcomes is uncertain. Aims The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were the detection of any adenoma (conventional adenoma, sessile serrated polyp, and traditional serrated adenoma), sessile serrated polyp detection rate, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and perforation rate. Methods The Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort consists of all patients who underwent colonoscopy between April 2017 and Oct 2018 at 21 hospitals serving a large geographic area in Southwest Ontario. Procedures performed in patients less than 18 years of age or by endoscopist who perform &lt;50 colonoscopies/year were excluded. Data were collected through a mandatory quality assurance form that was completed by the endoscopist after each procedure. Pathology reports were manually reviewed. Results A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed by 75 physicians (37.5% by gastroenterologists, 60% by general surgeons, 2.5% others) of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation (e.g. combination of a benzodiazepine and a narcotic). Patients who received propofol were likely to have a screening indication (49.2% vs 45.5%, p&lt;0.0001), not have a trainee endoscopist present and be performed at a non-academic centre (32.2% vs 44.6%, p&lt;0.0001). Compared to conscious sedation, use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p&lt;0.0001) and detection of any adenoma (27.7% vs. 29.8%, p&lt;0.0001); no difference was observed in the detection ofsessile serrated polyps (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p=0.26), polyp detection rate (41.2% vs 41.2%, p=0.978), cecal intubation rate (97.1% vs. 96.8%, p=0.15) or perforation rate (0.04% vs. 0.06%,p=0.45). On multi-variable analysis, the use of propofol was not significantly associated with any improvement in ADR (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.74–1.10, p=0.30), detection of any adenoma (RR=0.93, 95% CI 0.75–1.14, p=0.47), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (RR=1.20, 95%CI 0.90–1.60, p=0.22), polyp detection rate (RR=1.00, 95% CI 0.90–1.11, p=0.99), or cecal intubation rate (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.80–1.26, p=0.99). Conclusions The use of propofol sedation does not improve colonoscopy quality metrics. Funding Agencies None

scholarly journals It's Not Just a Needlestick: Exploring Phlebotomists' Knowledge, Training, and Use of Comfort Measures in Pediatric Care to Improve the Patient Experience

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 847-856
Author(s):  
Julie Piazza ◽  
Sandra Merkel ◽  
Harry Neusius ◽  
Susan Murphy ◽  
Joan Gargaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Child Development ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Child Life ◽  
Patient Comfort ◽  
Pediatric Care ◽  
Training Methods ◽  
Hospital System ◽  
Topical Anesthetics ◽  
And Training

Abstract Background Blood draws are a routine element of the pediatric patient experience. They are also associated with the greatest fear and pain for a child. Because of the limited literature regarding phlebotomists' knowledge, experience, training, or stress related to their use of comfort techniques during pediatric blood draws, this study explored current practices and training methods. Phlebotomist training tends to focus on clinical technique rather than pediatric or patient comfort support. The study includes aims to develop a measurement for phlebotomists' use of comfort techniques for pediatric blood draws. Method Focus groups of parent advocates (n = 24) and pediatric phlebotomists (n = 11) reviewed the survey questionnaire, and it was revised before being e-mailed to hospital system phlebotomists (n = 128). Results Almost half of the sample group lacked training in child development. The most frequently used comfort measures were words of explanation and reassurance, positioning of the child, and distraction. Requesting child life specialist support and using pain management devices or topical anesthetics were used less often. Primary challenges to performing pediatric blood draws were anxious patients and parents. Conclusion Phlebotomists' use of available comfort measures occurs infrequently. Including child development and comfort techniques in training programs is essential to providing pediatric patients with a more satisfactory experience.

A novel device for intracolonoscopy cleansing of inadequately prepared colonoscopy patients: a feasibility study

Endoscopy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (01) ◽  
pp. 85-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly van Keulen ◽  
Helmut Neumann ◽  
Jörn Schattenberg ◽  
Aura van Esch ◽  
Wietske Kievit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Procedure Time ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
New Device ◽  
Novel Device ◽  
Bowel Cleansing ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Cleaning Device

Abstract Background The importance of high quality preprocedural bowel preparation is widely acknowledged, but suboptimal bowel cleansing still occurs in up to 20 % of all colonoscopy patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a novel intraprocedural cleaning device for cleaning poorly prepared colons. Methods This multicenter feasibility study included patients aged 18 – 75 years who were referred for colonoscopy. Intraprocedural cleaning was performed in patients after a limited preprocedural bowel preparation regimen (2 days of dietary restrictions and 2 × 10 mg bisacodyl). The primary outcome was the proportion of adequately prepared patients (Boston Bowel Preparation scale [BBPS] ≥ 2 in each segment) before and after segmental washing with the new device. Secondary outcomes included: cecal intubation rate, procedure time, system usability, patient satisfaction, and safety. Results 47 patients (42.6 % male), with a median age of 61 years (interquartile range [IQR] 46 – 67 years), were included at three clinical sites. Cecal intubation was achieved in 46/47 patients (97.9 %). The cleaning device significantly improved the proportion of patients with adequate bowel cleansing (from 19.1 % to 97.9 %; P < 0.001) and median BBPS score (from 3.0 [IQR 0.0 – 5.0] to 9.0 [IQR 8.0 – 9.0]). Median cecal intubation time and total procedure time were 16.5 minutes (IQR 9.0−28.3) and 34.0 minutes (IQR 25.0 – 42.8), respectively. Physicians were satisfied with the ease of use of the device and it was well tolerated by patients. No severe adverse events occurred during the study period. Conclusions This feasibility study suggests that the intraprocedural cleaning device appears to be safe and effective in cleaning poorly prepared colons to an adequate level, allowing a thorough colorectal examination.

scholarly journals Diagnostic application of water exchange colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 515-527
Author(s):  
Xiufang Xu ◽  
Dongqiong Ni ◽  
Yuping Lu ◽  
Xuan Huang
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Water Exchange ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Cecal Intubation ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Cecal Intubation Rate

Background Few well-designed studies have investigated water exchange colonoscopy (WE). We performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the clinical utility of WE based on high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to compare the impacts of WE, water immersion colonoscopy (WI), and gas-insufflation colonoscopy. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Elsevier, CNKI, VIP, and Wan Fang Data for RCTs on WE. We analyzed the results using fixed- or random-effect models according to the presence of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. Results Thirteen studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. The colonoscopic techniques included WE as the study group, and WI and air- or CO2-insufflation colonoscopy as control groups. WE was significantly superior to the control procedures in terms of adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, and cecal intubation rate according to odds ratios. WE was also significantly better in terms of maximal pain score and patient satisfaction score according to mean difference. Conclusions WE can remarkably improve the adenoma detection rate, proportion of painless unsedated colonoscopy procedures, patient satisfaction, and cecal intubation rate, as well as reducing the maximal pain score in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document