Cargando…

Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents. Primary endpoints were rates of procedure-associated hospitalizations, diagnosis at hospitalization, and rates of early repeat screenings...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Young, Lisa E, Sacks, Naomi C, Cyr, Philip L, Sharma, Abhishek, Dahdal, David N
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5582656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28894587
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312117727999
_version_ 1783261220233543680
author Young, Lisa E
Sacks, Naomi C
Cyr, Philip L
Sharma, Abhishek
Dahdal, David N
author_facet Young, Lisa E
Sacks, Naomi C
Cyr, Philip L
Sharma, Abhishek
Dahdal, David N
author_sort Young, Lisa E
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents. Primary endpoints were rates of procedure-associated hospitalizations, diagnosis at hospitalization, and rates of early repeat screenings. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases, which contain fully adjudicated, de-identified, medical- and prescription-drug claims, as well as demographic and enrollment information for individuals with commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare supplemental insurance coverage. Patients who had a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy over a 3-year period were identified using International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification procedure codes, recorded on claims from physicians and facilities. First, screening colonoscopy was identified for each patient, and the study was limited to those patients who could be observed for ≥6 months before and 3 months after the screening procedure. Total number of hospitalizations and rates of early repeat screenings were evaluated for all patients who received sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate and compared with those who received other bowel-preparation agents. Individual prescription medications that could affect the outcome of the cleansing agent were identified; further evaluations were made to establish whether patients had comorbid conditions, such as chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, or psychiatric illness. Statistical methods included descriptive statistics, two-tailed t-tests, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 566,628 procedures were identified in the MarketScan databases and included in the study. Sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate performed well in terms of safety outcomes, with no hospitalizations due to diagnosis of hyponatremia, dehydration, or other fluid disorders in the 10 days after procedure. Early repeat rates among sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate patients were comparable with rates observed for all other cleansing agents. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate were not significantly different compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5582656
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55826562017-09-11 Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy Young, Lisa E Sacks, Naomi C Cyr, Philip L Sharma, Abhishek Dahdal, David N SAGE Open Med Original Article OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents. Primary endpoints were rates of procedure-associated hospitalizations, diagnosis at hospitalization, and rates of early repeat screenings. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases, which contain fully adjudicated, de-identified, medical- and prescription-drug claims, as well as demographic and enrollment information for individuals with commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare supplemental insurance coverage. Patients who had a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy over a 3-year period were identified using International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification procedure codes, recorded on claims from physicians and facilities. First, screening colonoscopy was identified for each patient, and the study was limited to those patients who could be observed for ≥6 months before and 3 months after the screening procedure. Total number of hospitalizations and rates of early repeat screenings were evaluated for all patients who received sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate and compared with those who received other bowel-preparation agents. Individual prescription medications that could affect the outcome of the cleansing agent were identified; further evaluations were made to establish whether patients had comorbid conditions, such as chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, or psychiatric illness. Statistical methods included descriptive statistics, two-tailed t-tests, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 566,628 procedures were identified in the MarketScan databases and included in the study. Sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate performed well in terms of safety outcomes, with no hospitalizations due to diagnosis of hyponatremia, dehydration, or other fluid disorders in the 10 days after procedure. Early repeat rates among sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate patients were comparable with rates observed for all other cleansing agents. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate were not significantly different compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents. SAGE Publications 2017-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5582656/ /pubmed/28894587 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312117727999 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Article
Young, Lisa E
Sacks, Naomi C
Cyr, Philip L
Sharma, Abhishek
Dahdal, David N
Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy
title Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy
title_full Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy
title_fullStr Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy
title_short Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy
title_sort comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5582656/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28894587
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312117727999
work_keys_str_mv AT younglisae comparisonofclaimsdataonhospitalizationratesandrepeatproceduresinpatientsreceivingabowelpreparationpriortocolonoscopy
AT sacksnaomic comparisonofclaimsdataonhospitalizationratesandrepeatproceduresinpatientsreceivingabowelpreparationpriortocolonoscopy
AT cyrphilipl comparisonofclaimsdataonhospitalizationratesandrepeatproceduresinpatientsreceivingabowelpreparationpriortocolonoscopy
AT sharmaabhishek comparisonofclaimsdataonhospitalizationratesandrepeatproceduresinpatientsreceivingabowelpreparationpriortocolonoscopy
AT dahdaldavidn comparisonofclaimsdataonhospitalizationratesandrepeatproceduresinpatientsreceivingabowelpreparationpriortocolonoscopy