What Factors Affect the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy? A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study Mauro Bruno, Emanuele Rondonotti, Cesare Hassan, Lorenzo Fuccio, Nico Pagano, Gabriele Curcio, Pietro Dulbecco, Carlo Fabbri, Chiara Giordanino, Silvia Carrara, Domenico Della Casa, Stefania Maiero, Adriana Simone, Federico Iacopini, Cristiano Spada, Giuseppe Feliciangeli, Gianpiero Manes, Francesca Rogai, Alessandro Repici Servizio di Endoscopia Digestiva, IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano (MI), Italy; Dipartimento di Gastro-Epatologia, A.O. S. Giovanni Battista di Torino Ospedale Molinette, Torino, Italy; Divisione di Medicina U.O. di Gastroenterologia, Ospedale Valduce, Como, Italy; U.O.C. di Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia Digestiva, Nuova Regina Margherita Azienda Ospedaliera Roma, Roma, Italy; U.O.C di Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia Digestiva, Policlinico Sant’Orsola Malpighi, Bologna, Italy; Dipartimento di Endoscopia, ISMETT, Palermo, Italy; U.O.C. di Gastroenterologia Universita di Genova, Ospedale S. Martino Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate, Genova, Italy; U.O.C. di Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia Digestiva, Presidio Ospedaliero Bellaria Maggiore, Bologna, Italy; S. C. Gastroenterologia Epatologia, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria San Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano (Torino), Italy; U.O. di Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia Digestiva, Universita Vita-Salute IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Italy; Centro di Endoscopia Digestiva, A.O. Spedali Civili Universita degli Studi di Brescia, Brescia, Italy; S.O.C. Gastroenterologia Oncologica, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS, Aviano (Pordenone), Italy; U.O. di Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia Digestiva, Ospedale G.B. Morgagni L. Pierantoni, Forli, Italy; Struttura Complessa di Endoscopia Digestiva, Ospedale San Giuseppe, Marino (Roma), Italy; U.O. di Endoscopia Digestiva Chirurgica, Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy; Servizio di Endoscopia Digestiva, Ospedale di Macerata, Macerata, Italy; U.O. di Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia Digestiva, Ospedale Polo Universitario L. Sacco, Milano, Italy; Servizio di Endoscopia Digestiva, Ospedale Valdelsa Campostaggia, Poggibonsi (Siena), Italy Background: Good bowel preparation is of paramount importance for colonoscopy since inadequate cleansing results in decreased rates of cecal intubation, increased risk of missing polyps, prolonged duration of colonoscopy and increased rate of repeated colonoscopies. The aim of this study was to identify factors that impact on the quality of bowel preparation and those that are associated with low patient acceptance. Methods: Adult outpatients referred for colonoscopy at 18 Italian centers were enrolled between May and September 2010. The following data were recorded for each patient: age and gender, body mass index (BMI), level of education, source of referral and indication for colonoscopy, medical history and current medications. The patients chose freely one of the scheduled types of bowel preparation available in each center, and the type and timing of bowel preparation, the type of instructions provided (written, verbal) and patient compliance with the cleansing protocol were recorded. The quality of bowel cleansing was assessed using a previously validated (Rex D, et al GIE 2006) 4-point scale (excellent, good, fair and poor) based on the amount and nature of residual material. For statistical analysis, bowel scores were grouped as adequate (excellent or good) or inadequate (fair or poor). Data were evaluated by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Of 2811 outpatients who were enrolled (52% men, mean age 61 years), inadequate colonic preparation was observed in 925 (32.9%) colonoscopies. At multivariate analysis, inadequate cleansing was associated with male gender (p 0.0014), previous colonoscopy (p 0.0152), and a history of cirrhosis, diabetes or chronic invalidating co-morbidities (p 0.001). Conversely, good predictors of adequate preparation were: adherence to bowel preparation ( 75% of the recommended dose; p 0.0001), use of sennosides or bisacodyl (p 0.05), an interval of less than 12 hours between the completion of bowel preparation and colonoscopy (p 0.0001), a BMI of 25 (p 0.0042), a higher level of education (p 0.005) the level of received instructions (oral plus written vs written alone; p 0.0003) and the tolerability of preparation (patient’s willingness to repeat the same protocol in future; p 0.0002). Difficulty in drinking the entire volume and bad taste of the solution were reported by 26.4 and 21.4% of patients, respectively. Both items were associated with inadequate bowel cleansing at univariate analysis (p 0.001). Conclusions: This study identified multiple factors affecting the quality of colonic preparation, some of which can be modified to achieve a higher degree of bowel cleansing. Important non-modifiable factors may be valuable in identifying subjects for whom more aggressive cleansing protocols should be considered. Tu1508 Enteral Stents Placement With 0.025” Guidewires Is Comparable to Placement With 0.035” Guidewires Douglas G. Adler, Kristen Hilden, John C. Fang Gastroenterology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT Introduction: Duodenal and colonic stents are placed for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), malignant or benign large bowel obstruction and for temporary preoperative decompression. The guidewire used for stent placement and deployment is generally recommended to be 0.035” for stiffness. 0.025” guidewires offer increased flexibility. At our institution, enteral stent placement is performed with either 0.025” or 0.035” size guidewires. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing duodenal and colonic stenting by guidewire size. Methods: Retrospective review of all duodenal and colon stents placed between 2005-2010. Immediate and long-term complications were followed. Results: Sixty-two stent procedures (32 duodenal, 30 colonic) were performed on 57 patients (25 F, 32 M). All procedures were technically successful. Mean age was 61.6 (27-92) years. Indications for duodenal stent placement included: pancreatic mass causing obstruction (28), other malignancy causing GOO (4). Colonic stent indications included: mass causing obstruction (24), abnormal CT (2), abnormal barium enema (1), stricture/obstruction (3). Stents were placed with 0.025” guidewires in 32 procedures(20 duodenal, 11 colon) and a 0.035” guidewire in 30 procedures (12 duodenal, 19 colon). There were 3 major complications among all procedures (5%), 2 in the 0.025” guidewire group and one 0.035” guidewire group (p NS). In the 0.025” guidewire group, there were two episodes of delayed perforation. MInor 30-day complications included aspiration pneumonia (1), and infections (3) all of which were not felt to be due to the endoscopy. One of these delayed perforations occurred in a patient with a colon stent who was taking Avastin, a known risk factor for colonic perforation. The other perforation occurred at a separate colonic site 10 months post-procedure. Both perforations required surgery. In the 0.035 guidewire group, the only complication was an acute perforation that required surgery. There were no minor complications. Conclusions: Both 0.025” and 0.035” guidewire size for cannulation during duodenal or colonic stenting appear to be safe and effective. Perforations in the 0.025” guidewire group were both delayed and one occurred in a patient on a medication associated with perforations. Other complications were not directly attributed to the guidewire or stent.