TY - JOUR
T1 - Systematic Review
T2 - Outcomes by Duration of NPO Status prior to Colonoscopy
AU - Shaukat, Aasma
AU - Malhotra, Ashish
AU - Greer, Nancy
AU - MacDonald, Roderick
AU - Wels, Joseph
AU - Wilt, Timothy J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Aasma Shaukat et al.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Background/Aims. Variation exists among anesthesia providers as to acceptable timing of NPO ("nothing by mouth") for elective colonoscopy procedures. There is a need to balance optimal colonic preparation, patient convenience, and scheduling efficiency with anesthesia safety concerns. We reviewed the evidence for the relationship between NPO timing and aspiration incidence and colonoscopy rescheduling. Methods. We searched MEDLINE (1990-April 2015) for English language studies of any design and included them if at least one bowel preparation regimen was completed within 8 hours of colonoscopy. Study characteristics, patient characteristics, and outcomes were abstracted and verified by investigators. We determined risk of bias for each study and overall strength of evidence for primary and secondary outcomes. Results. We included 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 controlled clinical trials, and 10 observational reports. Six studies reported on aspiration; none found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk, though studies were not designed to assess this outcome (low strength of evidence). One RCT found fewer rescheduled procedures following split-dose preparation but NPO status was not well-documented (insufficient evidence). Conclusions. Aspiration incidence requiring hospitalization during colonoscopy with moderate or deep sedation is very low. No study found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk. We did not find direct evidence of the effect of NPO status on colonoscopy rescheduling.
AB - Background/Aims. Variation exists among anesthesia providers as to acceptable timing of NPO ("nothing by mouth") for elective colonoscopy procedures. There is a need to balance optimal colonic preparation, patient convenience, and scheduling efficiency with anesthesia safety concerns. We reviewed the evidence for the relationship between NPO timing and aspiration incidence and colonoscopy rescheduling. Methods. We searched MEDLINE (1990-April 2015) for English language studies of any design and included them if at least one bowel preparation regimen was completed within 8 hours of colonoscopy. Study characteristics, patient characteristics, and outcomes were abstracted and verified by investigators. We determined risk of bias for each study and overall strength of evidence for primary and secondary outcomes. Results. We included 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 controlled clinical trials, and 10 observational reports. Six studies reported on aspiration; none found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk, though studies were not designed to assess this outcome (low strength of evidence). One RCT found fewer rescheduled procedures following split-dose preparation but NPO status was not well-documented (insufficient evidence). Conclusions. Aspiration incidence requiring hospitalization during colonoscopy with moderate or deep sedation is very low. No study found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk. We did not find direct evidence of the effect of NPO status on colonoscopy rescheduling.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027108308&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027108308&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1155/2017/3914942
DO - 10.1155/2017/3914942
M3 - Review article
C2 - 28791043
AN - SCOPUS:85027108308
SN - 1687-6121
VL - 2017
JO - Gastroenterology Research and Practice
JF - Gastroenterology Research and Practice
M1 - 3914942
ER -