Shortened surveillance intervals following suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy: Results of a national survey
- 222 Downloads
Suboptimal bowel preparation can result in decreased neoplasia detection, shortened surveillance intervals, and increased costs. We assessed bowel preparation recommendations and the relationship to self-reported proportion of suboptimal bowel preparations in practice; and evaluated the impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on colonoscopy surveillance practices. A random sample of a national organization of gastroenterologists in the U.S. was surveyed.
Demographic and practice characteristics, bowel preparation regimens, and proportion of suboptimal bowel preparations in practice were ascertained. Recommended follow-up colonoscopy intervals were evaluated for optimal and suboptimal bowel preparation and select clinical scenarios.
We identified 6,777 physicians, of which 1,354 were randomly selected; 999 were eligible, and 288 completed the survey. Higher proportion of suboptimal bowel preparations/week (≥10 %) was associated with hospital/university practice, teaching hospital affiliation, >25 % Medicaid insured patients, recommendation of PEG alone and sulfate-free. Those reporting >25 % Medicare and privately insured patients, split dose recommendation, and use of MoviPrep® were associated with a <10 % suboptimal bowel preparations/week. Shorter surveillance intervals for three clinical scenarios were reported for suboptimal preparations and were shortest among participants in the Northeast who more often recommended early follow-up for normal findings and small adenomas. Those who recommended 4-l PEG alone more often advised <1 year surveillance interval for a large adenoma.
Our study demonstrates significantly shortened surveillance interval recommendations for suboptimal bowel preparation and that these interval recommendations vary regionally in the United States. Findings suggest an interrelationship between dietary restriction, purgative type, and practice and patient characteristics that warrant additional research.
KeywordsColonoscopy Purgatives Suboptimal bowel preparation Colonoscopy surveillance intervals Survey
This work was supported by a National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health fellowship (R25 CA094601) to C.H. Basch; a National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) at the National Institutes of Health grant (KL2 RR024157) to B. Lebwohl; American Cancer Society (RSGT-09-012-01-CPPB) grant to C.E. Basch; and National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (K07 151769) grant to F. Kastrinos.
Conflict of interests
- 1.American Cancer Society (2011) Colorectal cancer facts and figures, 2011–2013. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
- 2.Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Smith RA, Brooks D, Andrews KS et al (2008) Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 58:130–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, Stillman JS, O’Brien MJ, Levin B et al (2006) Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology 130:1872–1885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH, Fanelli RD, Hyman N, Shen B et al (2006) A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Gastrointest Endosc 63:894–909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Cattau EL Jr (2010) Colonoscopy capacity in Tennessee: potential response to an increased demand for colorectal cancer screening. Tenn Med 103(37–38):40Google Scholar