...
首页> 外文期刊>Gastroenterology >Quantification of Adequate Bowel Preparation for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy in Men
【24h】

Quantification of Adequate Bowel Preparation for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy in Men

机译:量化用于肠道筛查或男性结肠镜检查的足量肠道准备

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Bowel preparation is defined as adequate if it is sufficient for identification of polyps greater than 5 mm. However, adequate preparation has not been quantified. We performed a prospective observational study to provide an objective definition of adequate preparation, based on the Boston Bowel Prep Scale (BBPS, which consists of 0-3 points for each of 3 colon segments). METHODS: We collected data from 438 men who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopies and then repeat colonoscopy examinations within 60 days by a different blinded endoscopist (1161 colon segments total) at the West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center from January 2014 to February 2015. Missed polyps were defined as those detected on the second examination of patients with the best possible bowel preparation (colon segment BBPS score of 3) on the second examination. The primary outcome was the proportion of colon segments with adenomas larger than 5 mm that were missed in the first examination. We postulated that the miss rate was noninferior for segments with BBPS scores of 2 vs those with BBPS scores of 3 (noninferiority margin, < 5%). Our secondary hypotheses were that miss rates were higher in segments with BBPS scores of 1 vs those with scores of 3 or of 2. RESULTS: The adjusted proportion with missed adenomas greater than 5 mm was noninferior for segments with BBPS scores of 2 (5.2%) vs those with BBPS scores of 3 (5.6%) (a difference of -0.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.9% to 2.2%). Of study subjects, 347 (79.2%) had BBPS scores of 2 or greater in all segments on the initial examination. A higher proportion of segments with BBPS scores of 1 had missed adenomas larger than 5 mm (15.9%) than segments with BBPS scores of 3 (5.6%) (a difference of 10.3%; 95% CI, 2.7%-17.9%) or 2 (5.2%) (a difference of 10.7%; 95% CI, 3.2%-18.1%). Screening and surveillance intervals based solely on the findings at the first examination would have been incorrect for 16.3% of patients with BBPS scores of 3 in all segments, for 15.3% with BBPS scores of 2 or 3 in all segments, and for 43.5% of patients with a BBPS score of 1 in 1 or more segments. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BBPS scores of 2 or 3 for all colon segments have adequate bowel preparation for the detection of adenomas larger than 5 mm and should return for screening or surveillance colonoscopy at standard guideline-recommended intervals. Colon segments with a BBPS score of 1 have a significantly higher rate of missed adenomas larger than 5 mm than segments with scores of 2 or 3. This finding supports a recommendation for early repeat colonoscopic evaluation in patients with a BBPS score of 0 or 1 in any colon segment.
机译:背景与目的:如果肠道准备足以识别大于5毫米的息肉,则定义为足够。然而,充分的准备工作尚未量化。我们进行了一项前瞻性观察研究,以基于波士顿肠准备量表(BBPS,由3个结肠段中的每个0-3分组成)提供适当准备的客观定义。方法:我们从2014年1月至2015年2月在西黑文退伍军人事务医疗中心从438名接受筛查或监测结肠镜检查的男性中收集了数据,然后在60天内由另一位盲目的内镜医师(共1161个结肠段)重复了结肠镜检查。漏诊息肉定义为在第二次检查中对第二次检查中肠准备水平最佳(结肠段BBPS得分为3)的患者进行的第二次检查。主要结局是在第一次检查中遗漏的腺瘤大于5 mm的结肠段的比例。我们假设BBPS得分为2的段的失误率与BBPS得分为3的段的失误率相当(非劣质性,<5%)。我们的第二种假设是,BBPS得分为1的段的失误率高于3或2的段的失误率。结果:对于BBPS得分为2的段,错失腺瘤大于5 mm的调整比例并不逊色。 )与BBPS得分为3(5.6%)的受访者(相差-0.4%; 95%置信区间[CI],-2.9%至2.2%)。在初次检查的所有部分中,有347名(79.2%)的BBPS得分为2或更高。 BBPS评分为1的段漏诊大于5 mm的腺瘤(15.9%)的比例高于BBPS评分为3的段(5.6%)(相差10.3%; 95%CI,2.7%-17.9%)或2(5.2%)(相差10.7%; 95%CI,3.2%-18.1%)。仅在第一次检查时就发现的筛查和监视间隔对于所有段的BBPS得分为3的患者的16.3%,在所有段的BBPS得分为2或3的患者的15.3%都是不正确的,而在所有段中的43.5% BBPS评分为1分或1分以上的患者。结论:所有结肠段的BBPS评分均为2或3的患者有足够的肠道准备,可以检测大于5毫米的腺瘤,应以标准指南推荐的间隔返回以进行筛查或结肠镜检查。 BBPS评分为1的结肠段比5毫米评分的2或3的段明显大于5 mm的腺瘤漏失率。这一发现支持对BBPS评分为0或1的患者进行早期结肠镜检查的建议。任何结肠段。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号