No abstract

Background The impact of fair bowel preparation on endoscopists’ recommendations and adenoma miss rates in average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy is unknown. Objective To assess the impact of fair bowel preparation on endoscopists’ interval colonoscopy recommendations and miss rates in colonoscopies performed within 3 years of the index colonoscopy in average-risk patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening. Design Retrospective chart review. Setting Tertiary-care center. Patients Average-risk patients undergoing index colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening between 2004 and 2006. Intervention Colonoscopy. Main Outcome Measurements Endoscopists’ interval recommendations, adenoma miss rates. Results A total of 16,251 colonoscopy records were reviewed over a 2-year period. Of these cases, 1943 colonoscopies were performed for the sole indication of average risk or screening. Of these, fair bowel preparation was reported in 619 patients (31.9%). A repeat colonoscopy within 5 years was recommended in 70.4% of patients. The follow-up colonoscopy compliance rate within 3 years was 55.9%. Adenoma detection rates at index and follow-up colonoscopy were 20.5% and 28.2%, respectively. Of the 39 patients with follow-up colonoscopy within 3 years, the overall adenoma miss rate was 28%. Of the patients with an adenoma identified on follow-up colonoscopy, 13.6% had normal colonoscopy results on index examination. Limitations Retrospective design. Conclusion Fair bowel preparation led to a deviation from national guidelines with early repeat colonoscopy follow-up recommendations in nearly 60% of average-risk patients with normal colonoscopy results. In patients who returned for repeat colonoscopy within 3 years, the overall adenoma miss rate was 28%. Further guidelines on timing for repeat colonoscopy for fair bowel preparation are needed.

OBJECTIVES Repeat colonoscopy in 10 years after a normal screening colonoscopy is recommended in an average-risk patient, and it has been proposed by American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) as a quality measure. However, there are little quantitative data about adherence to this recommendation or factors that may improve adherence. Our study quantifies adherence to this recommendation and the impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adherence. METHODS In this retrospective database study, endoscopy reports of average-risk individuals ≥50 years old with a normal screening colonoscopy were reviewed. Quality of colon cleansing was recorded using the Aronchick scale as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Main outcome measurements were quality of bowel preparation and recommendation for timing of repeat colonoscopy. Recommendations were considered consistent with guidelines if 10-year follow-up was documented after excellent, good, or fair prep or if ≤1-year follow-up was recommended after poor prep. RESULTS Among 1,387 eligible patients, recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy inconsistent with guidelines were seen in 332 (23.9%) subjects. By bowel preparation quality, 15.3% of excellent/ good, 75% of fair, and 31.6% of poor bowel preparations were assigned recommendations inconsistent with guidelines (P < 0.001). Patients with fair (odds ratio = 18.0; 95% confidence interval 12.0–28.0) were more likely to have recommendations inconsistent with guidelines compared with patients with excellent/good preps. CONCLUSIONS Recommendations inconsistent with guidelines for 10-year intervals after a normal colonoscopy occurred in >20% of patients. Minimizing “fair” bowel preparations may be a helpful intervention to improve adherence to these recommendations.