Help
Subscribe


GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy

 25 February 2018

Advanced search
GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy Profile of Roy Pounder

Home

News  
Journals
Review Articles
Slide Atlas
Video Clips
Online Books
Advanced Digestive Endoscopy
Classical Cases
Conference Diary
PubMed
International GH Links
USA GH Links
National GH Links
National GI Societies
Other Useful Links




Emails on Gastroenterology and Hepatology
the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project
Visit the gastroenterology section of the EUMS

News

Imperfect bowel preparation increases colonoscopy costs considerably

Imperfect bowel preparation substantially increases colonoscopy costs, according to research published in the July issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

News image

fiogf49gjkf04

A team from Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, measured the impact of bowel preparation on the efficiency and cost of colonoscopy.

The study included 200 consecutive outpatient colonoscopies in patients with intact colons, both at a private university hospital and at a public university hospital.

The time spent suctioning fluid and feces from the colon and the time spent washing the colon to clean the mucosa were recorded.

Colonoscopists were prospectively asked to designate examinations that should be repeated at an interval sooner than would otherwise be recommended because of imperfect preparation.

A cost analysis of the economic effect of bowel preparation on direct costs of colonoscopy was also conducted.

The researchers found that suctioning fluid and washing occupied 6% and 1.5%, respectively, of total examination time (including insertion and withdrawal) at the public hospital. These figures were 9% and 1.3% at the private hospital.

Patients at the public hospital were more likely to have an aborted examination (6.5% vs 1%).

Cost increase from imperfect preparation:
University hospital: 12%
Public hospital: 22%
American Journal of Gastroenterology

They also had a greater chance of being brought back earlier than suggested or required by current practice standards because of imperfect bowel preparation (20% vs 12.5%).

Cost analysis indicated that to complete the initial examinations and the first round of surveillance, imperfect bowel preparation resulted in a 12% increase in costs at the university hospital and a 22% increase at the public hospital.

Dr Douglas K. Rex, of the Indiana University Medical Center, said on behalf of his colleagues, "The increase in colonoscopy costs associated with imperfect preparation is substantial, and seems likely to vary among practices.

"Aborted examinations and surveillance examinations performed earlier than recommended because of imperfect preparation are appropriate targets for continuous quality improvement programs," he added.

"More reliable bowel preparations, or measures to improve patient compliance with bowel preparation, could significantly reduce the costs of colonoscopy in clinical practice," he concluded.

In an accompanying Editorial, Michael F. Byrne, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA, comments, "The study supports a widely held belief that further advances are required both in the administration of bowel preparation and in the type of preparation used.

"The present situation is not ideal. Further measures to improve patient compliance via education and improving the presentation and tolerability of the preparation are very appropriate and indeed achievable goals."

"These measures would undoubtedly translate into significant cost savings, lead to a decrease in procedure-related morbidity and mortality, and increase confidence in adoption of screening guidelines," he concludes.

Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97 (7): 1587-90, 1696-700
09 July 2002

Go to top of page Email this page Email this page to a colleague

 23 February 2018 
Patients on antithrombotic agents undergoing emergency and elective endoscopy
 23 February 2018 
Heavy metals on a gluten-free diet
 23 February 2018 
MRI and NAFLD
 22 February 2018 
Outcomes with Crohn’s after infliximab withdrawal
 22 February 2018 
Elderly onset of IBD

 22 February 2018 
Autophagy enhancers
 21 February 2018 
Management of hemorrhoids in the USA
 21 February 2018 
Adalimumab and infliximab in biologic-naïve Crohn's
 21 February 2018 
Cystic fibrosis and colorectal cancer
 20 February 2018 
Complications and surveillance colonoscopies
 20 February 2018 
Treatment algorithm for polyp cancers
 20 February 2018 
Predictors of postoperative infection in Crohn's
 19 February 2018 
Screening colonoscopy in the right and left colon
 19 February 2018 
NAFLD prevalence in the USA
 19 February 2018 
Fructans in children with IBS

 16 February 2018 
Inflammatory bowel diseases are global diseases
 16 February 2018 
Undetected celiac in the elderly
 16 February 2018 
Fructans induce non-celiac gluten sensitivity
 15 February 2018 
NSAIDS and GI damage
 15 February 2018 
Oral direct-acting antiviral treatment for Hep C virus genotype 1
 15 February 2018 
Primary vs secondary surgery for the presence of lymph node metastasis
 14 February 2018 
Predicting adenoma detection rate
 14 February 2018 
Normal bowel frequency characterization in the USA 
 13 February 2018 
Personalising treatment options for IBS
 13 February 2018 
Prebiotics improve endothelial dysfunction
 13 February 2018 
Diagnostic criteria for a Rome IV functional gastrointestinal disorders
 12 February 2018 
Visceral hypersensitivity and functional GI disorders
 12 February 2018 
Depression and aggressive IBD
 12 February 2018 
Variability in interpretation of endoscopic findings impacts patient management
 09 February 2018 
Treatment of choice for anastomotic stricture in IBD
 09 February 2018 
PRO measurement information system 
 09 February 2018 
Overall disease severity indices for IBD
 08 February 2018 
Prediction of endoscopically active disease

 08 February 2018 
Steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis
 08 February 2018 
Decision aid used by IBD patients
 07 February 2018 
Ursodeoxycholic acid combined with bezafibrate for itching
 07 February 2018 
Change in microbiome in gastritis vs gastric carcinoma
 07 February 2018 
Colorectal cancer and primary sclerosing cholangitis-IBD
 06 February 2018 
Risk of death after liver transplantation
 06 February 2018 
Crohn’s disease vs refractory pouchitis
 06 February 2018 
Support for functional dyspepsia symptom diary
 05 February 2018 
Helicobacter spp influence on GI tract 
 05 February 2018 
No link found between severe reflux and all-cause mortality 
 05 February 2018 
Psychological distress in PPI non-responders
 02 February 2018 
Assessing psychosexual impact of IBD
 02 February 2018 
Decrease in overall mortality with cholera vaccination
 02 February 2018 
Diagnostic performance of fecal immunochemical tests
 01 February 2018 
Screening frequency with family histories of colorectal cancer
 01 February 2018 
IBD and sport participation
 01 February 2018 
Life with a stoma 
 31 January 2018 
Aprepitant and gastroparesis 
 31 January 2018 
Anesthesia risk in colonoscopy
 31 January 2018 
GED-0301 for Crohn's Disease
 30 January 2018 
Intestinal dysbiosis and allergic diseases in infants
 30 January 2018 
Fructans and IBS symptoms in children
 29 January 2018 
Dosing calculator for therapy optimization in IBD
 29 January 2018 
Glecaprevir–pibrentasvir for in HCV
 29 January 2018 
Food allergen injections in eosinophilic esophagitis
 29 January 2018 
Reliability of the IBD index
 26 January 2018 
Tofacitinib vs biological therapies for ulcerative colitis

Blackwell Publishing


GastroHep.com is a Blackwell Publishing registered trademark
© 2018 Wiley-Blackwell and GastroHep.com and contributors
Privacy Statement
Disclaimer
About Us