Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11054/1574
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorZad, M.en_US
dc.contributorDo, C. N.en_US
dc.contributorHeffernan, A.en_US
dc.contributorJohnston, L.en_US
dc.contributorMohammed, Al-Ansarien_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-10T09:26:44Z-
dc.date.available2020-08-10T09:26:44Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.govdoc01513en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11054/1574-
dc.description.abstractBackground and Aim: Poor bowel preparation results in difficult colonoscopies, missed lesions, and repeat procedures. Identifying patient risk factors for poor bowel preparation, such as prolonged runway time and prolonged cecal intubation, will aid in interventions prior to a procedure. Methods: This was a retrospective, single‐center analysis of 3 295 colonoscopies performed between May 2012 and November 2014. Indications for colonoscopy included gastrointestinal bleed and anemia, change in bowel habits, for screening, and others (including planning re‐anastomoses, abdominal distension, family history and angioectasias). Data were collected from medical charts and endoscopy reports. Comparisons between patient factors and runway time were made with adequacy of bowel preparation as the primary outcomes. Results: Male and diabetic patients had statistically higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation and prolonged cecal intubation times. A previous history of abdominal surgery also demonstrated prolonged cecal intubation. A runway time of ≤7.63 h was associated with higher rates of adequate bowel preparation by multivariate analysis. The optimal time frame is 3–6 h for the highest success rates. Conclusion: Patient risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or prolonged cecal intubation should signal clinicians to intervene prior to colonoscopy. A runway time between 3 and 6 h is optimal for adequate bowel preparation. This may involve further patient education, along with work flow optimization, to facilitate ideal runway times. Future studies should explore how to avoid repeat endoscopies using protocols enforcing this timeframe.en_US
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2020-08-03T04:29:43Z No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceApproved for entry into archive by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2020-08-10T09:26:44Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 jgh3.12241.pdf: 766147 bytes, checksum: 4731cbd40af9708ba8205fe46d67f463 (MD5)en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2020-08-10T09:26:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 jgh3.12241.pdf: 766147 bytes, checksum: 4731cbd40af9708ba8205fe46d67f463 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020en
dc.titleFactors affecting bowel preparation adequacy and procedural time.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.type.specifiedArticleen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.titleJGH Openen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume4en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue2en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.stpage206en_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.endpage214en_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusBOWEL PREPARATIONen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusCOLONOSCOPYen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusPROCEDURE TIMEen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusRUNWAY TIMEen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12241en_US
Appears in Collections:Research Output

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat  
jgh3.12241.pdfThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.748.19 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.