Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 191, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 158-167

  Jensch, Sebastiaan ^a,b   De Vries, Ayso H ^a   Pot, Dennis ^a   Peringa, Jan ^b   Bipat, Shandra ^a   Florie, Jasper ^a   Van Gelder, Rogier E ^a   Stoker, Jaap ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bowel preparation; CT colonography; Fecal tagging; Image quality; Patient acceptance

Indexed keywords

ALFENTANIL; BARIUM SULFATE; BISACODYL; FENTANYL; GOLYTELY; LAXATIVE; LOSO PREP; MAGNESIUM CITRATE; MEGLUMINE DIATRIZOATE; MIDAZOLAM; RECOMBINANT GLUCAGON; SCOPOLAMINE BUTYL BROMIDE; TAGITOL V;

ABDOMINAL PAIN; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLON POLYP; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DEVICE; DIARRHEA; DIET; DRUG DOSE COMPARISON; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; FLATULENCE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTESTINE PREPARATION; LOW FIBER DIET; MALE; MONOTHERAPY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BISACODYL; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; DRUG ADMINISTRATION SCHEDULE; FEMALE; HUMANS; LAXATIVES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

EID: 46849099204     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3128     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC, et al. A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:1496-1503
2. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:2191-2200
3. Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ, et al. Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003; 125:304-310
4. Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, et al. Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003; 125:311-319
5. Van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie, et al. Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 41-48
6. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ III. A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97:3186-3194
7. van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J, et al. CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 2004; 233:328-337
8. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98:578-585
9. Weitzman ER, Zapka J, Estabrook B, Goins KV. Risk and reluctance: understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med 2001; 32:502-513
10. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preference. Radiology 2003; 227:378-384
11. Rex DK. Current colorectal cancer screening strategies: overview and obstacles to implementation. Rev Gastroenterol Disord 2002; 2[suppl 1]:S2-S11
12. Callstrom MR, Johnson CD, Fletcher JG, et al. CT colonography without cathartic group: feasibility study. Radiology 2001; 219:693-698
13. Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J, et al. CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR 2005; 184:1836-1842
14. Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J, et al. Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology 2002; 224:393-403
15. Thomeer M, Carbone I, Bosmans H, et al. Stool tagging applied in thin-slice multidetector computed tomography colonography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27:132-139
16. Bielen D, Thomeer M, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Dry group for virtual CT colonography with fecal tagging using water-soluble contrast medium: initial results. Eur Radiol 2003; 13:453-458
17. McFarland EG, Zalis ME. CT colonography: progress toward colorectal evaluation without catharsis. Gastroenterology 2004; 127:1623-1626
18. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic group for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2004; 127:1300-1311
19. Taylor S, Laghi A, Lefere PA, Halligan S, Stoker J. European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2007; 17:575-579
20. Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C, Kohlberg G, Hahn PF. Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology 2006; 239:149-159
21. Dachman AH, Dawson DO, Lefere P, et al. Comparison of routine and unprepped CT colonography augmented by low fiber diet and stool tagging: a pilot study. Abdom Imaging 2007; 32:96-104
22. Chen SC, Lu DS, Hecht JR, Kadell BM. CT colonography: value of scanning in both the supine and prone positions. AJR 1999; 172:595-599
23. Yee J, Kumar NN, Hung RK, Akerkar GA, Kumar PR, Wall SD. Comparison of supine and prone scanning separately and in combination at CT colonography. Radiology 2003; 226:653-661
24. Florie J, Birnie E, van Gelder RE, et al. MR colonography with limited bowel preparation: patient acceptance compared with that of fullpreparation colonoscopy. Radiology 2007; 245:150-159
25. Pepe MS. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction: Oxford statistical science series 28. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003:35-65
26. Ginnerup Pedersen B, Moller Christiansen TE, Viborg Mortensen F, Christensen H, Laurberg S. Bowel cleansing methods prior to CT colonography. Acta Radiol 2002; 43:306-311
27. Macari M, Lavelle M, Pedrosa I, et al. Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography. Radiology 2001; 218:274-277
28. Curran MP, Plosker GL. Oral sodium phosphate solution: a review of its use as a colorectal cleanser. Drugs 2004; 64:1697-1714
29. Pickhardt PJ. CT colonography without catharsis: the ultimate study or useful additional option? Gastroenterology 2005; 128:521-522
30. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR. Electronic cleansing and stool tagging in CT colonography: advantages and pitfalls with primary three-dimensional evaluation. AJR 2003; 181:799-805