Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2005 Mar;61(3):378-84.
doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02776-2.

Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study

Florian Froehlich et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Mar.

Abstract

Background: The quality of colon cleansing is a major determinant of quality of colonoscopy. To our knowledge, the impact of bowel preparation on the quality of colonoscopy has not been assessed prospectively in a large multicenter study. Therefore, this study assessed the factors that determine colon-cleansing quality and the impact of cleansing quality on the technical performance and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy.

Methods: Twenty-one centers from 11 countries participated in this prospective observational study. Colon-cleansing quality was assessed on a 5-point scale and was categorized on 3 levels. The clinical indication for colonoscopy, diagnoses, and technical parameters related to colonoscopy were recorded.

Results: A total of 5832 patients were included in the study (48.7% men, mean age 57.6 [15.9] years). Cleansing quality was lower in elderly patients and in patients in the hospital. Procedures in poorly prepared patients were longer, more difficult, and more often incomplete. The detection of polyps of any size depended on cleansing quality: odds ratio (OR) 1.73: 95% confidence interval (CI)[1.28, 2.36] for intermediate-quality compared with low-quality preparation; and OR 1.46: 95% CI[1.11, 1.93] for high-quality compared with low-quality preparation. For polyps >10 mm in size, corresponding ORs were 1.0 for low-quality cleansing, OR 1.83: 95% CI[1.11, 3.05] for intermediate-quality cleansing, and OR 1.72: 95% CI[1.11, 2.67] for high-quality cleansing. Cancers were not detected less frequently in the case of poor preparation.

Conclusions: Cleansing quality critically determines quality, difficulty, speed, and completeness of colonoscopy, and is lower in hospitalized patients and patients with higher levels of comorbid conditions. The proportion of patients who undergo polypectomy increases with higher cleansing quality, whereas colon cancer detection does not seem to critically depend on the quality of bowel preparation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

  • Usefulness of an intensive bowel cleansing strategy for repeat colonoscopy after preparation failure.
    Ibáñez M, Parra-Blanco A, Zaballa P, Jiménez A, Fernández-Velázquez R, Fernández-Sordo JO, González-Bernardo O, Rodrigo L. Ibáñez M, et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011 Dec;54(12):1578-84. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31823434c8. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011. PMID: 22067188 Clinical Trial.
  • Quality of bowel cleansing in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy: A multicentre prospective regional study.
    Rotondano G, Rispo A, Bottiglieri ME, De Luca L, Lamanda R, Orsini L, Bruzzese D, Galloro G; SIED Campania PISCoPO study group investigators; Romano M, Miranda A, Loguercio C, Esposito P, Nardone G, Compare D, Magno L, Ruggiero S, Imperatore N, De Palma GD, Gennarelli N, Cuomo R, Passananti V, Cirillo M, Cattaneo D, Bozzi RM, D'Angelo V, Marone P, Riccio E, De Nucci C, Monastra S, Caravelli G, Verde C, Di Giorgio P, Giannattasio F, Capece G, Taranto D, De Seta M, Spinosa G, De Stefano S, Familiari V, Cipolletta L, Bianco MA, Sansone S, Galasso G, De Colibus P, Romano M, Borgheresi P, Ricco G, Martorano M, Gravina AG, Marmo R, Rea M, Maurano A, Labianca O, Colantuoni E, Iuliano D, Trovato C, Fontana A, Pasquale L, Morante A, Perugini B, Scaglione G, Mauro B. Rotondano G, et al. Dig Liver Dis. 2015 Aug;47(8):669-74. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2015.04.013. Epub 2015 Apr 25. Dig Liver Dis. 2015. PMID: 26028360
  • Intraprocedural bowel cleansing with the JetPrep cleansing system improves adenoma detection.
    Hoffman A, Murthy S, Pompetzki L, Rey JW, Goetz M, Tresch A, Galle PR, Kiesslich R. Hoffman A, et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul 14;21(26):8184-94. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i26.8184. World J Gastroenterol. 2015. PMID: 26185393 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
  • Achieving the best bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
    Parra-Blanco A, Ruiz A, Alvarez-Lobos M, Amorós A, Gana JC, Ibáñez P, Ono A, Fujii T. Parra-Blanco A, et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Dec 21;20(47):17709-26. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.17709. World J Gastroenterol. 2014. PMID: 25548470 Free PMC article. Review.
  • Advances in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
    Cohen LB. Cohen LB. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015 Apr;25(2):183-97. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2014.11.003. Epub 2015 Jan 9. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015. PMID: 25839681 Review.

Cited by