BACKGROUND/AIMS: Colorectal cancer, one of the most common cancers in developed countries, is curable when diagnosed at an early stage. However, for better screening, both a test that patients will tolerate and diagnostic accuracy are required. We compared patient experiences and preferences between computed tomographic (CT) colonography and conventional colonoscopy (CC) under conscious sedation. METHODS: Patients referred to the gastrointestinal clinic for CC were enrolled to also undergo CT colonography prior to CC. After each procedure, patients completed a questionnaire in which variables, such as abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, and loss of dignity, were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale, with the highest score representing the worst experience. To verify response stability, a telephone questionnaire followed within 24 h after each procedure. Patients were then asked about their preference for CT colonography or CC. RESULTS: Data were collected from 51 patients who fulfilled all requirements, including CT colonography, CC, the two questionnaires after each procedure, and a follow-up questionnaire. Severity of abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, and a loss of dignity were reported to be higher in CT colonography than in CC (p<0.01). In addition, the preference for CC was significantly higher than that for CT colonography (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although CT colonography is a safe and noninvasive screening test for colorectal cancer, further study is required to increase patient acceptance.
Colonography, Computed Tomographic/*methods/psychology ; Colonoscopy/*methods/psychology ; Colorectal Neoplasms/*diagnosis ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Mass Screening/*methods/psychology ; Middle Aged ; Patient Acceptance of Health Care/*psychology ; *Patient Satisfaction ; Prospective Studies ; Questionnaires

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study sought to characterize the current sedation practices of Korean endoscopists in real-world settings. METHODS: All active members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy were invited to complete an anonymous 35-item questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 22.7% (1,332/5,860). Propofol-based sedation was the dominant method used in both elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (55.6%) and colonoscopy (52.6%). The mean satisfaction score for propofol-based sedation was significantly higher than that for standard sedation in both examinations (all p<0.001). The use of propofol was supervised exclusively by endoscopists (98.6%). Endoscopists practicing in nonacademic settings, gastroenterologists, or endoscopists with <10 years of endoscopic practice were more likely to use propofol than were their counterparts (all p<0.001). In total, 27.3% of all respondents performed sedation practices without having undergone sedation training, and 27.4% did so without any formal sedation protocols. The choice of propofol as the dominant sedation method was the only significant predictor of endoscopist experience with serious sedation-related adverse events (odds ratio, 1.854; 95% confidence interval, 1.414 to 2.432). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopist-directed propofol administration is the predominant sedation method used in Korea. This survey strongly suggests that there is much room for quality improvement regarding sedation training and patient vigilance in endoscopist-directed sedation.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Colonoscopy/methods/psychology ; Conscious Sedation/*methods/psychology/standards ; Endoscopy, Digestive System/methods/psychology ; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/*methods/psychology ; Female ; Gastroenterology/methods ; Humans ; Hypnotics and Sedatives ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Satisfaction ; Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards/*statistics & numerical data ; Propofol ; Quality Improvement ; Republic of Korea ; Surveys and Questionnaires

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We investigated whether sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) plus bisacodyl compares favorably with conventional polyethylene glycol (PEG) with respect to bowel cleansing adequacy, compliance, and safety. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective, single-blinded study in outpatients undergoing daytime colonoscopies. Patients were randomized into a split preparation SPMC/bisacodyl group and a conventional split PEG group. We compared preparation adequacy using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), ease of use using a modified Likert scale (LS), compliance/satisfaction level using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and safety by monitoring adverse events during the colonoscopy between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were evaluated by intention to treat (ITT) analysis, and 319 were evaluated by per protocol (PP) population analysis (153 for SPMC/bisacodyl, 166 for PEG). The mean total BBPS score was not different between the two groups in both the ITT and PP analyses (p>0.05). The mean VAS score for satisfaction and LS score for the ease of use were higher in the SPMC/bisacodyl group (p<0.001). The adverse event rate was lower in the SPMC/bisacodyl group than in the PEG group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The SPMC/bisacodyl treatment was comparable to conventional PEG with respect to bowel preparation adequacy and superior with respect to compliance, satisfaction, and safety.
Adult ; Aged ; Cathartics/*administration & dosage ; Citrates/*administration & dosage ; Citric Acid/*administration & dosage ; Colon/*drug effects/surgery ; *Colonoscopy ; Drug Combinations ; Drug Therapy, Combination/methods ; Female ; Humans ; Intention to Treat Analysis ; Laxatives/*administration & dosage ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Organometallic Compounds/*administration & dosage ; Patient Compliance ; Patient Satisfaction ; Picolines/*administration & dosage ; Polyethylene Glycols/*administration & dosage ; Preoperative Care/methods/psychology ; Single-Blind Method ; Young Adult