A randomized trial to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate solution vs. 4 L polyethylene glycol solution as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I² range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.

Efficacy of Preoperative Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Patients With Crohn Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the efficacy of oral antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery for Crohn disease.

BACKGROUND

Although oral antibiotic prophylaxis with mechanical bowel preparation has been recommended for colorectal surgery, the use of this approach remains somewhat controversial. Moreover, the efficacy of this approach for inflammatory bowel disease also remains unclear.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial at the Hyogo College of Medicine. The study protocols were registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (000013369). In this study, 335 patients with Crohn disease who were scheduled to undergo intestinal resection with an open approach were randomly assigned to either group A or group B. The patients in group A received both preoperative oral antibiotics and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis, and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis alone was given to the patients in group B. All patients underwent preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate hydrate. The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) according to an intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Although the incidences of overall and organ/space SSI were not significantly different, the incidence of incisional SSI was significantly lower in group A (12/163; 7.4%) than in group B (27/162; 16.6%) (P = 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, the absence of oral antibiotic prophylaxis was an independent risk factor for incisional SSI (odds ratio: 3.3; 95% confidence interval: 1.3-8.3; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with Crohn disease contributed to the prevention of SSI.

Sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol before elective colonoscopy in outpatients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To determine the best option for bowel preparation [sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol (PEG)] for elective colonoscopy in adult outpatients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines was performed using Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Central, Cinahl and Lilacs. No restrictions were placed for country, year of publication or language. The last search in the literature was performed on November 20th, 2017. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. The subjects included were adult outpatients who underwent bowel cleansing for elective colonoscopy. The included studies compared sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) and PEG for bowel preparation. Exclusion criteria were the inclusion of inpatients or groups with specific conditions, failure to mention patient status (outpatient or inpatient) or dietary restrictions, and permission to have unrestricted diet on the day prior to the exam. Primary outcomes were bowel cleaning success and/or tolerability of colon preparation. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, polyp and adenoma detection rates. Data on intention-to-treat were extracted by two independent authors and risk of bias assessed through the Jadad scale. Funnel plots, Egger's test, Higgins' test (I 2) and sensitivity analyses were used to assess reporting bias and heterogeneity. The meta-analysis was performed by computing risk difference (RD) using Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with fixed-effects (FE) and random-effects (RE) models. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) version 6.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration) was the software chosen to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

662 records were identified but only 16 trials with 6200 subjects were included for the meta-analysis. High heterogeneity among studies was found and sensitivity analysis was needed and performed to interpret data. In the pooled analysis, SPMC was better for bowel cleaning [MH FE, RD 0.03, IC (0.01, 0.05), P = 0.003, I 2 = 33%, NNT 34], for tolerability [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.03, 0.13), P = 0.002, I 2 = 88%, NNT 13] and for adverse events [MH RE, RD 0.13, IC (0.05, 0.22), P = 0.002, I 2 = 88%, NNT 7]. There was no difference in regard to polyp and adenoma detection rates. Additional analyses were made by subgroups (type of regimen, volume of PEG solution and dietary recommendations). SPMC demonstrated better tolerability levels when compared to PEG in the following subgroups: "day-before preparation" [MH FE, RD 0.17, IC (0.13, 0.21), P < 0.0001, I 2 = 0%, NNT 6], "preparation in accordance with time interval for colonoscopy" [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.15), P = 0.02, I 2 = 54%, NNT 13], when compared to "high-volume PEG solutions" [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.14), I 2 = 89%, P = 0.02, NNT 13] and in the subgroup "liquid diet on day before" [MH RE, RD 0.14, IC (0.06,0.22), P = 0.0006, I 2 = 81%, NNT 8]. SPMC was also found to cause fewer adverse events than PEG in the "high-volume PEG solutions" [MH RE, RD -0.18, IC (-0.30, -0.07), P = 0.002, I 2 = 79%, NNT 6] and PEG in the "low-residue diet" subgroup [MH RE, RD -0.17, IC (-0.27, 0.07), P = 0.0008, I 2 = 86%, NNT 6].

CONCLUSION

SPMC seems to be better than PEG for bowel preparation, with a similar bowel cleaning success rate, better tolerability and lower prevalence of adverse events.

A head-to-head comparison of 4-L polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions before colonoscopy: which is the best? A multicentre, randomized trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG) to sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and low-volume polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (PEGA) in a single- or split-dose regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicentre study. Outpatients received either PEG or SPMC or PEGA in a single or a split dose before the colonoscopy. Quality and tolerability of the preparation and complaints during preparation were recorded.

RESULTS

Nine hundred seventy-three patients were analysed. Satisfactory bowel cleansing (Aronchick score 1 + 2) was more frequent when a split dose was used irrespective of the solution type (PEG 90.1 vs 68.8%, PEGA 86.0 vs 71.6%, SPMC 84.3 vs 60.2%, p < 0.001). SPMC was the best tolerated followed by PEGA (p < 0.006) and PEG as the worst (p < 0.001). Tolerability did not correlate with the regimen and amount of the solution used. Female gender is associated with a higher incidence of nausea, vomiting and pain (p < 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Both PEG, PEGA and SPMC are fully comparable in terms of colonic cleansing when used in similar regimens. The split-dose preparation is more effective in all agents. SPMC and PEGA are better tolerated than PEG. The preparation regimen and/or the volume do not affect tolerability.

Efficacy and safety of PICOPREP tailored dosing compared with PICOPREP day-before dosing for colon cleansing: a multi-centric randomised study

Background and study aims The success of any colonoscopy procedure depends upon the quality of bowel preparation. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a new tailored dosing (TD) regimen compared with the approved PICOPREP day-before dosing regimen (DBD) in the European Union. Patient and methods Patients (≥ 18 years) undergoing colonoscopy were randomised (2:1) to TD (Dose 1, 10 - 18 hours; Dose 2, 4 - 6 hours before colonoscopy) or DBD (Dose 1 before 8:00AM on the day before colonoscopy; Dose 2, 6 - 8 hours after Dose 1). The primary endpoint of overall colon cleansing efficacy was based on total Ottawa Scale (OS) scores (0 - 14, excellent-worst). The key secondary endpoint was a binary endpoint based on the ascending colon OS (success 0 or 1, failure [≥ 2]). Convenience and satisfaction were evaluated similar to the primary and key secondary endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. Results Use of the PICOPREP TD regimen resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the mean total Ottawa Scale score compared to the PICOPREP DBD regimen (-3.93, 95 % confidence intervals [CI]: - 4.99, - 2.97; P < 0.0001) in the intent-to-treat analysis set. The PICOPREP TD regimen also resulted in a statistically significant increase in the odds of achieving an ascending colon OS score ≤ 1, compared to the PICOPREP DBD regimen (estimated odds ratio 9.18, 95 % CI: 4.36, 19.32; P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (12 % (TD) and 5.7 % (DBD), respectively, P = 0.2988). The convenience and satisfaction were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion The TD regimen was superior to the DBD regimen for overall and ascending colon cleansing efficacy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02239692.

Acute Gastric Injury Caused by Undissolved Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate Powder

Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) is a widely used oral bowel cleansing agent considered to be relatively safe. However, partially dissolved or undissolved SPMC powder may cause severe injuries of the esophagus and stomach. We report a very rare case of acute gastric injury without esophageal damage caused by the ingestion of undissolved SPMC powder. A 69-year-old man experienced epigastric pain after swallowing SPMC powder without dissolving it in water in preparation for a screening colonoscopy. He realized his mistake immediately and subsequently drank 2 L of water. The esophagogastroduodenoscopy conducted after 12 hours indicated an acute gastric ulceration without injury of the esophagus or duodenum. The endoscopy conducted after 6 weeks of oral proton pump inhibitor treatment showed healing of the gastric injury. This suggested that drinking large amounts of water after ingesting partially dissolved or undissolved SPMC powder can prevent serious esophageal injury, but offers no preventive benefit for acute gastric injury.

Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a guide to enhance quality of visualization

Colonoscopy is an important screening and therapeutic modality for colorectal cancer. Unlike other screening tests, colonoscopy is dependent on pre-procedure bowel preparation. If the bowel preparation is poor, significant pathology may be missed. Many factors are known to improve bowel preparation. This review will highlight those factors that may optimize the bowel preparation, including choice of bowel preparation, grading or scoring of the bowel preparation, special factors that influence preparation, and diet prior to colonoscopy that affects bowel preparation. The aim of the review is to offer suggestions and guide endoscopists on how to optimize the bowel preparation for the patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies comparing sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) drew inconsistent conclusions. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of the two agents for colonoscopy preparation.

METHODS

A search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2015 was acquired, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. We calculated the pooled estimates of bowel cleanliness, polyp/adenoma detection rate (PDR/ADR), completion of preparation, willingness to repeat identical bowel preparation, and adverse events by using relative risk (RR) with random-effects models. A non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing SPMC to PEG for bowel cleaning efficacy.

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs were qualified for analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the two agents in bowel cleanliness, but the effect direction showed a trend in favor of PEG (RR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.86-1.01, P = 0.07). The non-inferiority analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of SPMC by retaining at least 90 % of the effect of PEG. Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two agents in PDR (RR 0.94; 95 % CI 0.82-1.08, P = 0.37) and ADR (RR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.74-1.05, P = 0.16). However, a higher proportion of patients were likely to complete SPMC preparation (RR 1.08; 95 % CI 1.04-1.13, P < 0.001) and were willing to repeat SPMC preparation (RR 1.44; 95 % CI 1.25-1.67, P < 0.001). The total number of adverse events was significantly lower in the SPMC group (RR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.66-0.93, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

SPMC, with better tolerability and less frequent adverse events, demonstrated non-inferior bowel cleaning efficacy than that of the PEG. Large-scale, well-organized, head-to-head studies are warranted.