Dataset Information

Validation of a new bowel preparation scale for measuring colon cleansing for colonoscopy: the chicago bowel preparation scale.

ABSTRACT: Current bowel preparation scales (BPSs) have significant limitations including an inability to distinguish among bowel preparations that adequately cleanse a high percentage of colons. We assessed the reliability and validity of the new Chicago BPS and compared it with existing BPSs.We performed a prospective evaluation of the cleanliness of 150 colons. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using kappa and Pearson correlation coefficients. Each colon was rated by a gastroenterologist and physician's assistant using the Ottawa BPS, the Boston BPS, a dichotomous (adequate/inadequate) BPS (where adequate was defined as being able to visualize at least 95% of the mucosa), and the Chicago BPS.Pearson correlation coefficients between the gastroenterologists and physician's assistant for total BPS scores were 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73, 0.85), 0.79 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.84), and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.88) for the Ottawa, Boston, and Chicago BPSs, respectively. Kappa coefficients for right, middle, and distal colon segment ratings were 0.66, 0.53, and 0.49, respectively, for the Ottawa BPS; 0.64, 0.66, and 0.54, respectively, for the Boston BPS; and 0.70, 0.62, and 0.63, respectively, for the Chicago BPS. Differences between the Chicago BPS and the other BPSs were not statistically significant. The Chicago BPS exhibited the best correspondence between BPS total score and the adequate/inadequate BPS.This study demonstrated the validity and reliability of the Chicago BPS. The better defined grading criteria, better designed numerical ratings scale, and better correspondence between Chicago BPS total score and the adequate/inadequate BPS make the Chicago BPS an attractive alternative to the Ottawa BPS and the Boston BPS.

SUBMITTER: Gerard DP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3865439 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract Aims Failed bowel preparation is common during colonoscopy, yet the optimal purgative regimen to use for the next attempt is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of two regimens at supratherapeutic doses for use after failed bowel preparation. Methods A multi-centre phase III endoscopist blinded randomized controlled trial (NCT02976805) was conducted in patients who failed bowel preparation, using the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) definition of inability to exclude polyps >5 mm in size and requiring a shortened interval to next colonoscopy. Regimen A consisted of 15 mg of bisacodyl and 2 + 2 L of split dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG) and Regimen B consisted of 15 mg of bisacodyl and 4 + 2 L of split dose PEG. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) total score ≥ 6 with all segment scores ≥ 2. Secondary outcomes were adequate bowel preparation using the USMSTF definition, median BBPS, adenoma detection (ADR), advanced adenoma detection (aADR), sessile serrated polyp detection (SSPDR), and cecal intubation (CIR). Adverse events were assessed at the time of the colonoscopy and 14 days later. Results Between February 2017 and December 2019, 250 subjects were screened at four academic centres in Canada, of which 195 were randomized: 96 to Regimen A and 99 to Regimen B. The mean (SD) age was 60.6 (11.4) years, 87 (45.1%) were female, and the median (IQR) total BBPS score at previous failed colonoscopy was 3 (1,4). Regimen B was not superior to Regimen A in achieving adequate bowel preparation using the BBPS definition (87.6% vs. 91.1%, p=0.45) or the USMSTF definition (85.4% vs 91.1%, p=0.24), nor was it superior with respect to the median BBPS score (7 vs 7, p=0.50), mean ADR (31.5% vs 37.8%, p=0.37), aADR (11.2% vs 18.9%, p=0.15), SSPDR (5.6% vs 8.9%, p=0.40) or CIR (92.1% vs 96.7%, p=0.19). Regimen A had a higher adherence rate (88.2% vs. 74.7%, p=0.02) and greater willingness to undergo the bowel preparation again (91.2% vs. 66.2%, p<0.001). The only serious adverse event occurred in a patient randomized to Regimen B who was admitted to hospital for vomiting after colonoscopy. Conclusions Split dose 4L PEG with 15mg of bisacodyl is highly efficacious, well tolerated, and can be used for patients who previously failed first line bowel preparations. The additional 2L of PEG in Regimen B did not improve bowel preparation and was not as well tolerated. Funding Agencies AMOSO Opportunities Grant, Pharmascence Inc.

Project description:BackgroundHigh quality bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy can be difficult to achieve in the inpatient setting. Hospitalized patients are at risk for extended hospital stays and low diagnostic yield due to inadequate bowel preparation. The Pure-Vu System is a novel device intended to fit over existing colonoscopes to improve intra-colonoscopy bowel preparation. The objective of the REDUCE study was to conduct the first inpatient study to evaluate optimization of bowel preparation quality following overnight preparation when using the Pure-Vu System during colonoscopy.MethodsThis multicenter, prospective feasibility study enrolled hospitalized subjects undergoing colonoscopy. Subjects recorded the clarity of their last bowel movement using a 5-point scale prior to colonoscopy. After one night of preparation, all enrolled subjects underwent colonoscopy utilizing the Pure-Vu System. The primary endpoint was improvement of colon cleanliness from baseline to post-cleansing with the Pure-Vu System as assessed by the improvement in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). An exploratory analysis was conducted to assess whether the clarity of the last bowel movement could predict inadequate bowel preparation.ResultsNinety-four subjects were included. BBPS analyses showed significant improvements in bowel preparation quality across all evaluable colon segments after cleansing with Pure-Vu, including left colon (1.74 vs 2.89; p < 0.0001), transverse colon (1.74 vs 2.91; p < 0.0001), and the right colon (1.41 vs 2.88; p < 0.0001). Prior to Pure-Vu, adequate cleansing (BBPS scores of ≥ 2) were reported in 60%, 62%, and 47% for the left colon, transverse colon, and right colon segments, respectively. After intra-colonoscopy cleansing with the Pure-Vu System, adequate colon preparation was reported in 100%, 99%, and 97% of the left colon, transverse colon, and right colon segments, respectively. Subjects with lower bowel movement clarity scores were more likely to have inadequate bowel preparation prior to cleansing with Pure-Vu.ConclusionsIn this feasibility study, the Pure-Vu System appears to be effective in significantly improving bowel preparation quality in hospitalized subjects undergoing colonoscopy. Clarity of last bowel movement may be useful indicator in predicting poor bowel preparation. Larger studies powered to evaluate clinical outcomes, hospital costs, and blinded BBPS assessments are required to evaluate the significance of these findings. Trial registration Evaluation of the Bowel Cleansing in Hospitalized Patients Using Pure-Vu System (NCT03503162).

Dataset Information

Validation of a new bowel preparation scale for measuring colon cleansing for colonoscopy: the chicago bowel preparation scale.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets