A31 IS AN ORAL SODIUM SULFATE SOLUTION MORE EFFECTIVE FOR PATIENTS WITH PRIOR CHALLENGING COLONOSCOPY PREPARATION? - A PROSPECTIVE CASE SERIES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background A considerable proportion of patients encounter difficulties with existing bowel cleansing regimens for colonoscopy resulting in suboptimal bowel visualization. This impacts patients, endoscopists, those on the waiting list, and the endoscopy unit overall. Aims Oral Sulfate Solution (OSS) has been proven to be efficacious in many situations and therefore this study aims to explore its benefit in patients who had challenging preparations during their previous colonoscopy. Methods This prospective case series was conducted at Kingston Health Sciences Centre. Patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy were considered for enrolment if previous colonoscopy reports indicated criteria of suboptimal preparation. Participants were allowed a light breakfast the day before the colonoscopy and consumed the first dose of OSS in a split dose fashion. The primary outcome was adequacy of bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), defined as an overall score greater than 6, with each segment scoring at least 2. Secondary outcome measures included time to cecum, volume suctioned, and tolerability rating. Results A total of 120 patients with colonoscopies that were deemed as challenging to prepare were included in this study. Inclusion criteria for 109 of these patients was documentation of extensive washing and suctioning for adequate view of the colon, 5 had poor or fair preparation with images revealing obvious debris and 6 either vomited or consumed 80% or less of the preparation. Participants mean age was 67 years (SD=7.151), 66 (55%) were male and 24 (20%) had diabetes. The average BBPS score was 7 (SD=1.757) and 88% of the patients had adequate preparation. Participants’ prior colonoscopy preparations were primarily polyethylene glycol (52.5%) and a picosulfate based agent with bisacodyl (40.8%). Mean time to cecum was 7 minutes and 29 seconds (SD= 4 minutes and 29 seconds). The mean total volume suctioned was 1048.78mls (SD= 708.621). Tolerability data demonstrated 107 (89.2%) participants cumulatively rated OSS overall as tolerable, easy or very easy to use. Nausea was reported by 46 participants (38.3%), while vomiting occurred in 10 (8.3%). Abdominal distension or bloating was noted by 34 participants (28.3%), and 51(42.5%) experienced abdominal cramping, discomfort, or pain. Conclusions OSS showed a reduction to 12% inadequate bowel preparation. This is very encouraging given this group of patients had challenging preparation in the past. Its combination of effect, ease of use, and tolerability could deem it superior to traditional choice in these patients and can be used as a standard low volume preparation. Funding Agencies Pendopharm
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».