Use of automated irrigation pumps improves quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Table 1 Baseline characters of the study population

	Manual flushes	Automated irrigation pumps	P value
n	328	709
Age, yr (mean, 95%CI)	60.0 (59.0-61.1)	60.3 (59.6-61.1)	0.70
Gender, n (%)			0.34
Female	18 (5.5)	49 (6.9)
Male	310 (94.5)	660 (93.1)
Race, n (%)			0.47
African-American	176 (53.7)	359 (50.6)
Caucasian	146 (44.5)	341 (48.1)
Others	6 (1.8)	9 (1.3)
Performed by: n (%)			0.42
Attending physician alone	65 (19.8)	156 (22.0)
GI fellow with attending physician	263 (80.2)	553 (78.0)
Indications, n (%)			0.09
Screening	191 (58.2)	373 (52.6)
Diagnostic	137 (41.8)	336 (47.4)
History of CRC/polyps, n (%)			0.55
No	238 (72.6)	527 (74.3)
Yes	90 (27.4)	182 (25.7)

GI: Gastroenterology; CRC: Colorectal cancer.

Table 2 Colonoscopy results stratified by the use of the automated irrigation pumps

	Manual flushes	Automated irrigation pumps	Odds ratio (95%CI)
			P value
n	328	709
Prep quality, n (%)			2.91 (2.04-4.15)
			P < 0.01
Sub-optimal prep	80 (24.4)	73 (10.3)
Satisfactory prep	248 (75.6)	636 (89.7)
Procedure aborted due to poor prep, n (%)			2.45 (0.92-6.50)
			P = 0.10
No	323 (98.5)	684 (96.5)
Yes	5 (1.5)	25 (3.5)
Recommendation to repeat early due to prep quality, n (%)			0.27 (0.18-0.40)
			P < 0.01
No	258 (78.7)	660 (93.1)
Yes	70 (21.3)	49 (6.9)
Polyp detection, n (%)			0.85 (0.64-1.12)
			P = 0.60
Yes	194 (59.2)	407 (57.4)
No	134 (40.8)	302 (42.6)
Adenoma detection, n (%)			0.99 (0.75-1.31)
			P = 0.65
Yes	133 (40.6)	298 (42.0)
No	195 (59.4)	411 (58.0)