Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-01-2010 | Gastrointestinal

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation

Authors: Sebastiaan Jensch, Shandra Bipat, Jan Peringa, Ayso H. de Vries, Anneke Heutinck, Evelien Dekker, Lubbertus C. Baak, Alexander D. Montauban van Swijndregt, Jaap Stoker

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 1/2010

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare participant experience and preference of limited preparation computed tomography colonography (CTC) with full-preparation colonoscopy in a consecutive series of patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. CTC preparation comprised 180 ml diatrizoate meglumine, 80 ml barium and 30 mg bisacodyl. For the colonoscopy preparation 4 l of polyethylene glycol solution was used. Participants’ experience and preference were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test and the chi-squared test, respectively. Associations between preference and experience parameters for the 173 participants were determined by logistic regression. Diarrhoea occurred in 94% of participants during CTC preparation. This side effect was perceived as severely or extremely burdensome by 29%. Nonetheless, the total burden was significantly lower for the CTC preparation than for colonoscopy (9% rated the CTC preparation as severely or extremely burdensome compared with 59% for colonoscopy; p < 0.001). Participants experienced significantly more pain, discomfort and total burden with the colonoscopy procedure than with CTC (p < 0.001). After 5 weeks, 69% preferred CTC, 8% were indifferent and 23% preferred colonoscopy (p < 0.001). A burdensome colonoscopy preparation and pain at colonoscopy were associated with CTC preference (p < 0.04). In conclusion, participants’ experience and preference were rated in favour of CTC with limited bowel preparation compared with full-preparation colonoscopy.

Available only for authorised users

Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY et al (2008) Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 359:1207–1217CrossRefPubMed

Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ et al (2007) CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 357:1403–1412CrossRefPubMed

Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brawley OW (2009) Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 59:27–41CrossRefPubMed

Nelson N (2008) Virtual colonoscopy accepted as primary colon cancer screening Test. JNCI 100:1492–1494PubMed

Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP (2003) Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 98:578–585CrossRefPubMed

van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J et al (2004) CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 233:328–337CrossRefPubMed

Beebe TJ, Johnson CD, Stoner SM, Anderson KJ, Limburg PJ (2007) Assessing attitudes toward laxative preparation in colorectal cancer screening and effects on future testing: potential receptivity to computed tomographic colonography. Mayo Clin Proc 82:666–671CrossRefPubMed

Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG et al (2001) CT colonography without cathartic group: feasibility study. Radiology 219:693–698PubMed

Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J et al (2005) CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1836–1842PubMed

10.

Thomeer M, Carbone I, Bosmans H et al (2003) Stool tagging applied in thin-slice multidetector computed tomography colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27:132–139CrossRefPubMed

11.

Bielen D, Thomeer M, Vanbeckevoort D et al (2003) Dry group for virtual CT colonography with fecal tagging using water-soluble contrast medium initial results. Eur Radiol 13:453–458PubMed

12.

Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D et al (2008) Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:158–167CrossRefPubMed

13.

Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J et al (2002) Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology 224:393–403CrossRefPubMed

14.

Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C, Kohlberg G, Hahn PF (2006) Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 239:149–159CrossRefPubMed

15.

Taylor SA, Slater A, Burling DN et al (2008) CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol 18:32–42CrossRefPubMed

16.

Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic group for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127:300–1311CrossRef

17.

Jensch S, de Vries AH, Peringa J et al (2008) CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population. Radiology 247:122–132CrossRefPubMed

18.

Florie J, Jensch S, Nievelstein RA et al (2007) MR colonography with limited bowel preparation compared with optical colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Radiology 243:122–131CrossRefPubMed

19.

Pickhardt PJ (2005) CT Colonography without catharsis: the ultimate study or useful additional option? Gastroenterology 128:521–522CrossRefPubMed

20.

Davis GS, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, Fordtran JS (1980) Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology 78:991–995PubMed

21.

Ell C, Fischbach W, Keller R et al (2003) A randomized, blinded, prospective trial to compare the safety and efficacy of three bowel-cleansing solutions for colonoscopy. Endoscopy 35:300–304CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bitoun A, Ponchon T, Barthet M et al (2006) Results of a prospective randomised multicentre controlled trial comparing a new 2-L ascorbic acid plus polyethylene glycol and electrolyte solution vs. sodium phosphate solution in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 24:1631–1642CrossRefPubMed

23.

Poon CM, Lee DW, Mak SK et al (2002) Two liters of polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution versus sodium phosphate as bowel cleansing regimen for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 34:560–563CrossRefPubMed

24.

Ginnerup Pedersen B, Møller Christiansen TE, Viborg Mortensen F, Christensen H, Laurberg S (2002) Bowel cleansing methods prior to CT colonography. Acta Radiol 43:306–311CrossRefPubMed

25.

Curran MP, Plosker GL (2004) Oral sodium phosphate solution: a review of its use as a colorectal cleanser. Drugs 64:1697–1714CrossRefPubMed

26.

Tan HL, Liew QY, Loo S, Hawkins R (2002) Severe hyperphosphataemia and associated electrolyte and metabolic derangement following the administration of sodium phosphate for bowel preparation. Anaesthesia 57:478–483CrossRefPubMed

27.

von Wagner C, Halligan S, Atkin WS et al (2009) Choosing between CT colonography and colonoscopy in the diagnostic context: a qualitative study of influences on patient preferences. Health Expect 12:18–26CrossRef

Title: CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation
Authors: Sebastiaan Jensch
Shandra Bipat
Jan Peringa
Ayso H. de Vries
Anneke Heutinck
Evelien Dekker
Lubbertus C. Baak
Alexander D. Montauban van Swijndregt
Jaap Stoker
Publication date: 01-01-2010
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 1/2010
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1517-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Imaging in primary penile cancer: current status and future directions

Multidetector CT predictors of incomplete resection in primary cytoreduction of patients with advanced ovarian cancer

Reply to letter to the editor: Assessment of the spatial pattern of colorectal tumour perfusion estimated at perfusion CT using two-dimensional fractal analysis

Paraplegia complicating selective steroid injections of the lumbar spine. Report of five cases and review of the literature

Evaluation of the effects of oral water and low-density barium sulphate suspension on bowel appearance on FDG-PET/CT

Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results