Colorectal cancer(CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in t...Colorectal cancer(CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in the United States. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy CRC screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, unsuccessful screens, and an increased likelihood of repeat procedure. In addition, standardized criteria and assessment scales for bowel preparation quality are lacking. While several bowel preparation quality scales are referred to in the literature, these differ greatly in grading methodology and categorization criteria. Published reliability and validity data are available for five bowel preparation quality assessment scales, which vary in several key attributes. However, clinicians and researchers continue to use a variety of bowel preparation quality measures, including nonvalidated scales, leading to potential confusion and difficulty when comparing quality results among clinicians and across clinical trials. Optimal clinical criteria for bowel preparation quality remain controversial. The use of validated bowel preparation quality scales with stringent but simple scoring criteria would help clarify clinical trial data as well as the performance of colonoscopy in clinical practice related to quality measurements.展开更多
目的基于“真实世界”研究2 L复方聚乙二醇电解质溶液(PEG)在结肠镜检查前肠道准备时的应用效果。方法选取2022年11月至2023年4月在我院消化内镜中心使用2 L PEG方案进行肠道准备的4268例患者,根据波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)对总体、各...目的基于“真实世界”研究2 L复方聚乙二醇电解质溶液(PEG)在结肠镜检查前肠道准备时的应用效果。方法选取2022年11月至2023年4月在我院消化内镜中心使用2 L PEG方案进行肠道准备的4268例患者,根据波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)对总体、各段结肠的清洗结果进行评分,按照是否合格分为合格组(n=3802)和不合格组(n=466)。比较两组的危险因素、依从性及患者感受等。结果在使用PEG进行肠道准备的4268例检查者中,3802例合格(合格率89.1%),466例不合格(不合格率10.9%)。BBPS总评分为(6.60±1.10)分,右侧结肠评分为(2.05±0.48)分,横结肠评分为(2.45±0.55)分,左侧结肠为(2.10±0.45)分。息肉总体检出率为51.6%(2203/4268)。进行多因素Logistic回归方程分析,结果显示,男性、胃肠道外科手术史、糖尿病史、每周排便<3次均为导致结肠镜检查前肠道准备不合格的危险因素(均OR>1,P<0.05)。结论2 L PEG方案能够基本满足中国人结肠镜检查肠道准备的需求,对于男性、胃肠道外科手术史、糖尿病史、每周排便<3次的检查者需要进行更严格的肠道准备方式。展开更多
AIM: To investigate the impact of Jet Prep cleansing on adenoma detection rates.METHODS: In this prospective,randomized,crossover trial,patients were blindly randomized to an intervention arm or a control arm.In accor...AIM: To investigate the impact of Jet Prep cleansing on adenoma detection rates.METHODS: In this prospective,randomized,crossover trial,patients were blindly randomized to an intervention arm or a control arm.In accordance with the risk profile for the development of colorectal carcinoma,the study participants were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups.Individuals with just one criterion(age > 70 years,adenoma in medical history,and first-degree relative with colorectal cancer) were regarded as high-risk patients.Bowel preparation was performed in a standardized manner one day before the procedure.Participants in the intervention arm underwent an initial colonoscopy with standard bowel cleansing using a 250-m L syringe followed by a second colonoscopy that included irrigation by the use of the Jet Prep cleansing system.The reverse sequence was used in the control arm.The study participants were divided into a high-risk group and a low-risk group according to their respective risk profiles for the development of colorectal carcinoma.RESULTS: A total of 64 patients(34 men and 30 women) were included in the study; 22 were included in the high-risk group.After randomization,30 patients were assigned to the control group(group A) and 34 to the intervention group(group B).The average Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was 5.15 ± 2.04.The withdrawal time needed for the first step was significantly longer in group A using the Jet Prep system(9.41 ± 3.34 min) compared to group B(7.5 ± 1.92 min).A total of 163 polyps were discovered in 64 study participants who underwent both investigation steps.In group A,49.4% of the polyps were detected during the step of standard bowel cleansing while the miss rate constituted 50.7%.Group B underwent cleansing with the Jet Prep system during the first examination step,and as many as 73.9% of polyps were identified during this step.Thus,the miss rate in group B was a mere 26.1%(P < 0.001).When considering only the right side of the colon,the miss rate in group A during the first examination was 60.6%,in contrast to a miss rate of 26.4% in group B(P < 0.001).CONCLUSION: Jet Prep is recommended for use during colonoscopy because a better prepared bowel enables a better adenoma detection,particularly in the proximal colon.展开更多
背景:结肠镜检查是公认的结直肠检查的金标准,而良好的肠道准备是检查成功的前提条件。目的:评价聚乙二醇电解质溶液(PEG-ES)分次与单次口服作为结肠镜检查肠道准备方案的清洁效果和耐受性。方法:连续纳入427例进行结直肠癌筛查的无症...背景:结肠镜检查是公认的结直肠检查的金标准,而良好的肠道准备是检查成功的前提条件。目的:评价聚乙二醇电解质溶液(PEG-ES)分次与单次口服作为结肠镜检查肠道准备方案的清洁效果和耐受性。方法:连续纳入427例进行结直肠癌筛查的无症状个体,随机分为A组和B组。A组于检查前夜和检查前4 h分别口服1.5 L PEG-ES,B组于检查前5 h口服3 L PEG-ES,评估、比较两组Boston肠道准备量表(BBPS)评分、等级和不良反应发生情况。结果:A组与B组间性别、年龄和盲肠插管率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。A组BBPS评分显著高于B组(P<0.01);尽管两种方案均能满足常规结肠镜检查的要求,但A组达到excellent肠道清洁等级者的比例显著高于B组(P<0.01),恶心症状发生率显著低于B组(P<0.05)。Logistic回归分析显示PEG-ES服用方式对肠道清洁度和恶心症状的发生有显著影响(P<0.05)。结论:与单次口服相比,分次口服PEG-ES的结肠镜检查肠道准备方案能获得更满意的肠道清洁效果且耐受性良好。展开更多
目的比较在不同时间口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散对患者肠道准备的影响。方法选取在本院内镜室接受结肠镜检查的患者264例,随机分为A组和B组。A组在检查前一晚21点服用复方聚乙二醇电解质散1盒(1000 m L),检查当日早晨5点服用复方聚乙二醇...目的比较在不同时间口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散对患者肠道准备的影响。方法选取在本院内镜室接受结肠镜检查的患者264例,随机分为A组和B组。A组在检查前一晚21点服用复方聚乙二醇电解质散1盒(1000 m L),检查当日早晨5点服用复方聚乙二醇电解质散1盒(1000 m L)进行肠道准备,B组在检查当日早晨5点服用复方聚乙二醇电解质散2盒(2000 m L)进行肠道准备。比较2组患者的肠道准备质量和患者的耐受性、依从性。结果 A组比B组有更好的肠道清洁度(BBPS评分7.37±1.31vs 6.85±1.19,P<0.01),2种肠道准备方法在患者的耐受性及依从性方面差异没有统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论采用检查前一晚及检查当日早晨分次口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散的方法肠道准备质量更好,而且不会影响患者的耐受性和依从性。展开更多
文摘Colorectal cancer(CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in the United States. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy CRC screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, unsuccessful screens, and an increased likelihood of repeat procedure. In addition, standardized criteria and assessment scales for bowel preparation quality are lacking. While several bowel preparation quality scales are referred to in the literature, these differ greatly in grading methodology and categorization criteria. Published reliability and validity data are available for five bowel preparation quality assessment scales, which vary in several key attributes. However, clinicians and researchers continue to use a variety of bowel preparation quality measures, including nonvalidated scales, leading to potential confusion and difficulty when comparing quality results among clinicians and across clinical trials. Optimal clinical criteria for bowel preparation quality remain controversial. The use of validated bowel preparation quality scales with stringent but simple scoring criteria would help clarify clinical trial data as well as the performance of colonoscopy in clinical practice related to quality measurements.
文摘目的基于“真实世界”研究2 L复方聚乙二醇电解质溶液(PEG)在结肠镜检查前肠道准备时的应用效果。方法选取2022年11月至2023年4月在我院消化内镜中心使用2 L PEG方案进行肠道准备的4268例患者,根据波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)对总体、各段结肠的清洗结果进行评分,按照是否合格分为合格组(n=3802)和不合格组(n=466)。比较两组的危险因素、依从性及患者感受等。结果在使用PEG进行肠道准备的4268例检查者中,3802例合格(合格率89.1%),466例不合格(不合格率10.9%)。BBPS总评分为(6.60±1.10)分,右侧结肠评分为(2.05±0.48)分,横结肠评分为(2.45±0.55)分,左侧结肠为(2.10±0.45)分。息肉总体检出率为51.6%(2203/4268)。进行多因素Logistic回归方程分析,结果显示,男性、胃肠道外科手术史、糖尿病史、每周排便<3次均为导致结肠镜检查前肠道准备不合格的危险因素(均OR>1,P<0.05)。结论2 L PEG方案能够基本满足中国人结肠镜检查肠道准备的需求,对于男性、胃肠道外科手术史、糖尿病史、每周排便<3次的检查者需要进行更严格的肠道准备方式。
文摘AIM: To investigate the impact of Jet Prep cleansing on adenoma detection rates.METHODS: In this prospective,randomized,crossover trial,patients were blindly randomized to an intervention arm or a control arm.In accordance with the risk profile for the development of colorectal carcinoma,the study participants were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups.Individuals with just one criterion(age > 70 years,adenoma in medical history,and first-degree relative with colorectal cancer) were regarded as high-risk patients.Bowel preparation was performed in a standardized manner one day before the procedure.Participants in the intervention arm underwent an initial colonoscopy with standard bowel cleansing using a 250-m L syringe followed by a second colonoscopy that included irrigation by the use of the Jet Prep cleansing system.The reverse sequence was used in the control arm.The study participants were divided into a high-risk group and a low-risk group according to their respective risk profiles for the development of colorectal carcinoma.RESULTS: A total of 64 patients(34 men and 30 women) were included in the study; 22 were included in the high-risk group.After randomization,30 patients were assigned to the control group(group A) and 34 to the intervention group(group B).The average Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was 5.15 ± 2.04.The withdrawal time needed for the first step was significantly longer in group A using the Jet Prep system(9.41 ± 3.34 min) compared to group B(7.5 ± 1.92 min).A total of 163 polyps were discovered in 64 study participants who underwent both investigation steps.In group A,49.4% of the polyps were detected during the step of standard bowel cleansing while the miss rate constituted 50.7%.Group B underwent cleansing with the Jet Prep system during the first examination step,and as many as 73.9% of polyps were identified during this step.Thus,the miss rate in group B was a mere 26.1%(P < 0.001).When considering only the right side of the colon,the miss rate in group A during the first examination was 60.6%,in contrast to a miss rate of 26.4% in group B(P < 0.001).CONCLUSION: Jet Prep is recommended for use during colonoscopy because a better prepared bowel enables a better adenoma detection,particularly in the proximal colon.
文摘背景:结肠镜检查是公认的结直肠检查的金标准,而良好的肠道准备是检查成功的前提条件。目的:评价聚乙二醇电解质溶液(PEG-ES)分次与单次口服作为结肠镜检查肠道准备方案的清洁效果和耐受性。方法:连续纳入427例进行结直肠癌筛查的无症状个体,随机分为A组和B组。A组于检查前夜和检查前4 h分别口服1.5 L PEG-ES,B组于检查前5 h口服3 L PEG-ES,评估、比较两组Boston肠道准备量表(BBPS)评分、等级和不良反应发生情况。结果:A组与B组间性别、年龄和盲肠插管率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。A组BBPS评分显著高于B组(P<0.01);尽管两种方案均能满足常规结肠镜检查的要求,但A组达到excellent肠道清洁等级者的比例显著高于B组(P<0.01),恶心症状发生率显著低于B组(P<0.05)。Logistic回归分析显示PEG-ES服用方式对肠道清洁度和恶心症状的发生有显著影响(P<0.05)。结论:与单次口服相比,分次口服PEG-ES的结肠镜检查肠道准备方案能获得更满意的肠道清洁效果且耐受性良好。
文摘目的比较在不同时间口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散对患者肠道准备的影响。方法选取在本院内镜室接受结肠镜检查的患者264例,随机分为A组和B组。A组在检查前一晚21点服用复方聚乙二醇电解质散1盒(1000 m L),检查当日早晨5点服用复方聚乙二醇电解质散1盒(1000 m L)进行肠道准备,B组在检查当日早晨5点服用复方聚乙二醇电解质散2盒(2000 m L)进行肠道准备。比较2组患者的肠道准备质量和患者的耐受性、依从性。结果 A组比B组有更好的肠道清洁度(BBPS评分7.37±1.31vs 6.85±1.19,P<0.01),2种肠道准备方法在患者的耐受性及依从性方面差异没有统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论采用检查前一晚及检查当日早晨分次口服复方聚乙二醇电解质散的方法肠道准备质量更好,而且不会影响患者的耐受性和依从性。
