Willingness to undergo split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy and compliance with split-dose instructions

Mandatory vs. optional split-dose bowel preparation for morning colonoscopies: a pragmatic noninferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND : We compared the effectiveness of optional split-dose bowel preparation (SDBP) with mandatory SDBP for morning colonoscopies in usual clinical practice. METHODS : Adult patients undergoing outpatient early morning (8:00 AM-10:30 PM) and late morning (10:30 AM-12:00 PM) colonoscopies were included. Written bowel preparation instructions were provided based on randomization: one group were instructed to take their bowel preparation (4 L polyethylene glycol solution) as a split dose (mandatory), while the comparator group was allowed the choice of SDBP or single-dose bowel preparation administered entirely on the day before (optional). The primary end point, using noninferiority hypothesis testing with a 5 % margin, was adequate bowel cleanliness measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and defined by a BBPS score ≥ 6. RESULTS : Among 770 randomized patients with complete data, there were 267 mandatory SDBP and 265 optional SDBP patients for early morning colonoscopies, and 120 mandatory SDBP and 118 optional SDBP patients for late morning colonoscopies. Optional SDBP was inferior to mandatory SDBP, with a lower proportion of adequate BBPS cleanliness for early morning colonoscopies (78.9 % vs. 89.9 %; absolute risk difference [aRD] 11.0 %, 95 %CI 5.9 % to 16.1 %), but was not statistically different for late morning colonoscopies (76.3 % vs. 83.3 %; aRD 7.1 %, 95 %CI -1.5 % to 15.5 %). CONCLUSIONS : Optional SDBP is inferior to mandatory SDBP in providing adequate bowel preparation quality for early morning colonoscopies (8:00 AM-10:30 AM), and probably inferior for late morning colonoscopies (10:30 AM-12:00 PM).

Low volume polyethylene glycol combined with senna versus high volume polyethylene glycol, which regimen is better for bowel preparation for colonoscopy? A randomized, controlled, and single-blinded trial

Background and Aims

Bowel preparation affects the quality of colonoscopy. Reaching the optimal preparation has been a challenge for years. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the sole FDA-approved substance for this purpose. However, patients find it unpleasant and often complain about its adverse effects. In this study, we aimed to reduce these complaints by lowering the amount of PEG and adding senna which is an herbal stimulant laxative.

Methods

Four hundred and eighty-six patients were admitted for colonoscopy. Finally, 382 patients were enrolled in the study and we divided them into two groups; 186 patients were placed in which conventional high volume PEG-alone regimen was consumed and 196 patients in which low volume PEG plus senna regimen was offered. The quality of colon preparation was compared between the two groups by independent two samples t-test (or its corresponding nonparametric test), Fisher's exact, or χ 2 test in SPSS software version 22.

Results

The colon preparation quality was equally efficient in the two groups as 69.36% in the high volume PEG group and 71.94% in PEG plus senna group had adequate bowel preparation (p = 0.58). Adverse effects, like nausea, bloating, headache, and sleeplessness were significantly less in the low volume PEG plus senna group.

Conclusion

Besides the fact that bowel preparation by low volume PEG plus senna combination was noninferior to the conventional high volume PEG-alone regimen, the side effects were much less common with the low volume PEG plus senna regimen.

Is it time we split bowel preparation for all colonoscopies? Outcomes from a national survey of bowel preparation practice in the UK

Introduction

Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for effective colonoscopy. Split bowel preparation results in optimal cleansing. This study assessed the bowel preparation regimes advised by endoscopy units across the UK, and correlated the differences with outcomes.

Methods

Trusts in the UK were surveyed, with data requested between January 2018 and January 2019, including: the type and timing of preparation, pre-endoscopy diet, adequacy rates and polyp detection. Trusts were grouped according to the timing of bowel preparation. χ² test was used to assess for differences in bowel preparation adequacy.

Results

Moviprep was the first line bowel preparation in 79% of trusts. Only 7% of trusts advised splitting bowel preparation for all procedures, however, 91% used split bowel preparation for afternoon procedures. Trusts that split preparation for all procedures had an inadequacy rate of 6.7%, compared with 8.5% (p<0.001) for those that split preparation for PM procedures alone and 9.5% (p<0.001) for those that provided day before preparation for all procedures. Morning procedures with day-before preparation had a higher rate of inadequate cleansing than afternoon procedures that received split preparation (7.7% vs 6.5 %, p<0.001). The polyp detection rate for procedures with adequate preparation was 37.1%, compared with 26.4% for those that were inadequate.

Conclusion

Most trusts in the UK do not provide instructions optimising the timing of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. This correlated with an increased rate of inadequate cleansing. Splitting bowel preparation is likely to reduce the impacts of poor cleansing: missed lesions, repeat colonoscopies and significant costs.

Split-Dose Regimen With Bisacodyl Increases the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

The aim of the present study was to compare 2 different bowel preparations procedures (split-dose with PicoPrep and bisacodyl vs. same-day preparation with PicoPrep) in patients undergoing colonoscopy with regard to quality of bowel preparation, compliance, and willingness to repeat. A retrospective quasi-experimental investigation was conducted. Adults with outpatient diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies were included. A total of 540 patients participated: group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' (n = 293) and group 'same-day' (n = 247). Patients in group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' had a higher chance for having an excellent quality of bowel preparation (21.2%; 95% CI [13.5, 28.9]) and a reduced risk of an incomplete colonoscopy (4.1%; 95% CI [1.2, 7.0]). Group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' drank more fluid, had more nightly visits to the bathroom, and had more bathroom stops on the way to the endoscopic site. No differences were found between groups regarding adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, overall time of colonoscopy, well-being during cleansing, patient satisfaction, the professional's assessment of the patient's tolerability of colonoscopy, and willingness to repeat the bowel preparation process. The split-dose regimen with PicoPrep and bisacodyl is now the standard bowel preparation procedure for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy as it is superior to the same-day regimen with PicoPrep regarding colon cleansing and incomplete colonoscopy. Hence, the written and verbal information at our institution regarding the bowel preparation procedure was altered according to the split-dose regimen, emphasizing the importance of adequate oral fluid intake and complete intake of the solution in order to ensure a safe and effective procedure.

Ward nurses-focused educational intervention improves the quality of bowel preparation in inpatients undergoing colonoscopy: A CONSORT-compliant randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for the detection of pathological lesions during colonoscopy. However, it has been found to be inadequate in approximately 20% to 30% of colonoscopy examinations. Educational interventions focused on health staff, such as physicians and nurses, may improve the patients' understanding of the bowel preparation instructions, and consequently, increase the quality of bowel preparation.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether enhanced education of ward nurses could improve the bowel preparation quality in inpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

DESIGN

This was a single-center randomized controlled study.

METHODS

A total of 190 consecutive inpatients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy from March 2019 to March 2020 were randomized to the educated (nurses with enhanced education) or control group (nurses without enhanced education). We assessed the bowel preparation quality using the Boston bowel preparation scale.

RESULTS

There were 89 patients in the educated group and 101 patients in the control group. The proportion of colonoscopies with adequate bowel preparation was 83.1% in the educated group and 69.3% in the control group. Patients' compliance with bowel preparation in the educated group was superior to that in the control group. Furthermore, significantly better sleep quality was found in the educated group. The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the ward nurses-focused enhanced educational intervention as a risk factor for bowel preparation quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The ward nurses-focused educational intervention improved the bowel preparation quality and reduced the adverse event rates in inpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry under number ChiCTR2000030366.

Does It work in Clinical Practice? A Comparison of Colonoscopy Cleansing Effectiveness in Clinical Practice Versus Efficacy from Selected Prospective Trials

Background

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for a high-quality colonoscopy. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated bowel preparation protocols, including split-dose and low-volume regimens. However, RCTs are conducted in an ideal, controlled setting, and translation of trial results to clinical practice is challenging. In this study, we compared the quality of bowel preparations of real-world patients from clinical practice with those enrolled in several prospective trials.

Methods

Bowel preparation quality, defined by the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), from four RCTs and one prospective trial were compared with two observational diary studies. Bowel preparations were polyethylene glycol preparation (PEG) or sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (P/MC) taken via traditional or split-dose timing regimen. Age, sex, average number of bowel movements per day, comorbidities, colonoscopy indication and colonoscopy completion rates were also collected.

Results

Patients enrolled in prospective trials had a better OBPS by one point when compared with those in observational clinical practice studies (P<0.049), after controlling for age, sex, colonoscopy indication and type of bowel preparation used. We also found that each 10-year increase in age was associated with a 0.2 point increase in OBPS (P=0.008), and men were associated with a 0.5 increase in OBPS when compared with women P=0.014).

Conclusion

Patients from clinical practice have higher OBPS than prospective trial patients. Increased age and male sex were also associated with increased OBPS. We believe increased patient motivation and education around bowel preparation regimen plays an important role in the success of bowel preparations.

Randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of a visual educational leaflet on the preparation of colonoscopies in hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

the safety and diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopies depends on the quality of colon cleansing. Several factors have been reported that affect the quality of bowel cleansing, hospitalization being one of them.

AIMS

the aim of the study was to investigate whether a visual educational leaflet improved the level of cleanliness achieved in hospitalized patients undergoing a colonoscopy and to identify predictors of a poor bowel preparation.

METHODS

a prospective, single-center, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed. The intervention group was given a visual educational leaflet and both groups received four liters of polyethylene glycol solution. Demographic data, personal history, reason for admission and indication for colonoscopy, work shift during which the procedure was performed and endoscopy findings were collected. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess the bowel preparation.

RESULTS

one hundred and thirty-six patients were included in the study; 51.5% were male, with a mean age of 64.3 ± 17.6 years. The educational leaflet did not result in a difference in the total BBPS obtained between the standard group and the intervention group (7 [6-9] vs 6 [5.7-9]; p = 0.17). According to the multivariable analysis, the only factors associated with a poor bowel cleansing were heart disease (OR 3.37 [1.34-8.46]; p = 0.010) and colorectal cancer (OR 3.82 [1.26-11.61]; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

the use of a visual educational leaflet for the preparation of colonoscopies did not provide a significant improvement in hospitalized patients in our health area. Heart disease was identified as the only predictor of poor preparation for colonoscopy.

Impact of Automated Time-released Reminders on Patient Preparedness for Colonoscopy

GOALS

To evaluate the effect of an automated time-released colonoscopy reminder program on preparation quality and the rates of canceled procedures.

BACKGROUND

Patients missing colonoscopy appointments or arriving with inadequate bowel preparations result in delays in care and increase in health care costs.

STUDY

We initiated a quality improvement program which included switching to a split-dose preparation and delivering preparation instructions and appointment reminders via text messages and emails sent with an automated time-released HIPAA-compliant software platform. All patients scheduled for a colonoscopy from March through June 2017 were enrolled unless mobile phone, email, or preparation type data was missing (nonintervention cohort). Primary outcome metrics were the rate of adequate bowel preparation and the rate of canceled procedures. Outcomes of the intervention group were compared with outcomes from colonoscopies performed from March through June 2016 (baseline cohort).

RESULTS

There were 1497 patients (40.7% male, mean age 56.4 y) enrolled in the automated reminder program. Compared with the baseline cohort, the rate of adequate bowel preparation increased from 88.5% to 96.2% (P<0.0001). The rate of canceled procedures decreased from 6.1% to 4.3% (P=0.02). On multivariable analysis, the automated reminder program improved adequate preparation quality 2.85-fold (95% confidence interval, 2.03-3.99; P<0.0001). Sensitivity analysis comparing the intervention to nonintervention cohorts showed that improvement in preparation quality was attributable to the automated reminder program.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of automated time-released colonoscopy preparation reminders via text messages and emails improved patient preparedness for colonoscopy, with significantly improved bowel preparation quality and fewer canceled procedures.

Predictors of patient reluctance to wake early in the morning for bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a precolonoscopy survey in city-wide practice

INTRODUCTION

 Many endoscopists do not use split-dose bowel preparation (SDBP) for morning colonoscopies. Despite SDBP being recommended practice, they believe patients will not agree to take early morning bowel preparation (BP). We assessed patients' opinions about waking early for BP.

METHODS

 A self-administered survey was distributed between 08/2015 and 06/2016 to patients in Winnipeg, Canada when they attended an outpatient colonoscopy. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of reluctance to use early morning BP.

RESULTS

 Of the 1336 respondents (52 % female, median age 57 years), 33 % had used SDBP for their current colonoscopy. Of the 1336, 49 % were willing, 24 % neutral, and 27 % reluctant to do early morning BP. Predictors of reluctant versus willing were number of prior colonoscopies (OR 1.20; 95 %CI: 1.07 - 1.35), female gender (OR 1.65; 95 %CI: 1.19 - 2.29), unclear BP information (OR 1.86; 95 %CI: 1.21 - 2.85), high BP anxiety (OR 2.02; 95 %CI: 1.35 - 3.02), purpose of current colonoscopy being bowel symptoms (OR 1.40; 95 %CI: 1.00 - 1.97), use of 4 L of polyethylene glycol laxative (OR 1.45; 95 %CI: 1.02 - 2.06), not having SDBP (OR 1.96; 95 %CI: 1.31 - 2.93), and not having finished the laxative for the current colonoscopy (OR 1.66; 95 %CI: 1.01 - 2.73). Most of the same predictors were identified when reluctance was compared to willing or neutral, and in ordinal logistic regression.

CONCLUSIONS

 Almost three-quarters of patients do not express reluctance to get up early for BP. Among those who are reluctant, improving BP information, allaying BP-related anxiety, and use of low volume BP may increase acceptance of SDBP.

Split-Dose Bowel Preparation Reduces the Need for Early Repeat Colonoscopy Without Improving Adenoma Detection Rate

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Split-dose bowel preparation is associated with improved mucosal visualization and patient tolerance, becoming a standard of care. However, quality measures data associated with this preparation are limited. At our academic tertiary-care facility, we aim to study the effect of changing from single- to split-dose preparation on colonoscopy quality measures.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study with quality indicators was conducted using electronic medical record data. Cases were identified via ICD9 code V76.51, "Special screening for malignant neoplasms of colon." Single-dose preparation data was collected from 9/1/13 to 8/31/14. Split-dose preparation was implemented 11/2014, and data were collected from 1/1/15 to 8/31/15.

RESULTS

A total of 1602 colonoscopies in the single-dose group and 1061 colonoscopies in the split-dose group were analyzed. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was significantly improved in the split-dose group 8.64 ± SD 1.25 versus 8.25 ± SD 1.61, p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate 40.7% (95% CI 37.8-43.7%) versus 40.5% (95% CI 38.1-42.9%), p = 0.92; however, the rate for recommending an early repeat examination due to an inadequate bowel preparation was significantly decreased to 3.9% (95% CI 2.7-5.0%) versus 8.9% (95% CI 1.52-2.97%), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

While split-dose preparation significantly improves overall bowel cleanliness, there is no significant adenoma detection rate improvement with high baseline rate, suggesting a threshold which may not improve with enhanced preparations. Split-dose preparation significantly reduces the frequency with which inadequate preparation prompts an early repeat examination, which has important clinical implications on performance, costs, and patient experience, providing further evidence supporting split-dose preparation use.

Educational strategies for colonoscopy bowel prep overcome barriers against split-dosing: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A split-dose (SD) regimen is crucial for colonoscopy quality. Compliance with SD for early morning colonoscopy is generally poor. The present study evaluated whether pre-colonoscopy counselling, in addition to a dedicated leaflet, might increase SD uptake.

METHODS

Consecutive 50-69-year-old patients undergoing screening colonoscopy before 10 a.m. were randomized to either receive written information only on bowel preparation (Written Group, WG) or written and oral instructions (Written and Oral Group, WaOG). The leaflet strongly encouraged SD adoption. The primary endpoint was the number of patients adopting SD in each group. The secondary endpoints were predictors of SD uptake, compliance with preparation schemes and cleansing adequacy.

RESULTS

A total of 286 patients (143 WG, 143 WaOG) were enrolled (mean age 59.6 ± 6.1 years, men 49.3%). SD was adopted by 114 and 125 patients in the WG and WaOG, respectively (79.7% versus 87.4%, p = 0.079). No significant differences were observed for the proportion of patients with full compliance with preparation scheme (97.9% versus 97.2%, p = 0.99) and of procedures with adequate bowel cleansing (95.6% versus 95.1%, p = 0.77). At multivariate analysis, a > 1 h travel time to the endoscopy service was inversely correlated with SD uptake (odds ratio (OR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Our leaflet guaranteed satisfactory uptake of SD and excellent adherence to the preparation scheme for early morning colonoscopy. Its use might marginalize the need for additional oral instructions, particularly in open-access settings.

Barriers against split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Although split regimen is associated with higher adenoma detection and is recommended for elective colonoscopy, its adoption remains suboptimal. The identification of patient-related barriers may improve its implementation. Our aim was to assess patients' attitude towards split regimen and patient-related factors associated with its uptake.

DESIGN

In a multicentre, prospective study, outpatients undergoing colonoscopy from 8:00 to 14:00 were given written instructions for 4 L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation, offering the choice between split-dose and day-before regimens and emphasising the superiority of split regimen on colonoscopy outcomes. Uptake of split regimen and association with patient-related factors were explored by a 20-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the 1447 patients (mean age 59.2±13.5 years, men 54.3%), 61.7% and 38.3% chose a split-dose and day-before regimens, respectively. A linear correlation was observed between time of colonoscopy appointments and split-dose uptake, from 27.3% in 8:00 patients to 96% in 14:00 patients (p<0.001, χ² for linear trend). At multivariate analysis, colonoscopy appointment before 10:00 (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18), travel time to endoscopy service >1 h (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.79), low education level (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) and female gender (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95) were inversely correlated with the uptake of split-dose. Overall, the risk of travel interruption and faecal incontinence was slightly increased in split regimen patients (3.0% vs 1.4% and 1.5% vs 0.9%, respectively; p=NS). Split regimen was an independent predictor of adequate colon cleansing (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.40 to 4.63) and polyp detection (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.92).

CONCLUSION

Patient attitude towards split regimen is suboptimal, especially for early morning examinations. Interventions to improve patient compliance (ie, policies to reorganise colonoscopy timetable, educational initiatives for patient and healthcare providers) should be considered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02287051; pre-result.

Scheduling rules for patients with diabetes mellitus that facilitate split-dosing improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Background & aims

An adequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy is best achieved by giving the cleansing regimen as a split-dose with the second dose given 4–6 hours before the procedure. This can be difficult to administer to diabetics who are preferentially scheduled for early morning procedures. We examined the impact on bowel preparation quality of scheduling diabetics for mid-morning (9:30 am or later) procedures rather than early morning procedures (7:30–9:00 AM) to facilitate a split-dose preparation.

Methods

Historical cohort study of 34,415 patients (1,805 diabetics) age 18–74 years without significant comorbidities who underwent an outpatient colorectal cancer screening-related colonoscopy either before (2013) or after (2014) a unit wide change in scheduling practices for diabetics. The primary outcome was the rate of inadequate bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes include the rate of procedures complete to the cecum, procedure duration and detection rates of polyps, any colorectal cancer screening-relevant lesion (adenoma, sessile serrated adenoma, large proximal hyperplastic polyp) and advanced adenomas.

Results

From 2013 to 2014, the proportion of diabetics with an inadequate bowel preparation decreased from 7.7% to 3.2% (95% confidence interval for the difference 2.2%–6.8%, P<0.00005). There was no significant change in the proportion of non-diabetics with inadequate preparation (2% in both years). There was no change in secondary outcomes in diabetics from 2013 to 2014.

Conclusions

Preferentially scheduling diabetic patients later in the morning that more conveniently allowed for a split dose bowel preparation resulted in decreased rates of inadequate bowel preparation without disadvantaging other patients.

Clinical Trial of 1000 Subjects Randomized to 5 Low-Volume Bowel Preparations for Colonoscopy and Their Acceptance of Split-Dose Bowel Preparations

BACKGROUND

We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of 5 low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

STUDY

We performed an investigator-blinded, randomized trial of 5 bowel preparations: 64 ounces of Gatorade and 306 or 357 g of PEG, both given the day prior; Gatorade and 306 g PEG, 2 L PEG-electrolyte solution with ascorbic acid, and sulfate solution, all 3 given as a split dose. One thousand outpatients consumed their preparation before a morning colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was colon cleanliness assessed by the Chicago Bowel Preparation Scale (BPS). Tolerability was assessed using a subject questionnaire. Another primary endpoint was patient acceptance of a split-dose bowel preparation assessed using a subject questionnaire.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in the modified Chicago BPS were found among Gatorade and 357 g of PEG given as a day-prior dose and the 3 split-dose arms with 98.5% of colons cleansed adequately. The Gatorade and 357 g of PEG had significantly lower Chicago BPS fluid scores and Chicago BPS total scores (indicating dryer colons that required more irrigation) than the 3 split-dose arms. The Gatorade and PEG preparations were better tolerated. Many subjects are unwilling to consume a split-dose preparation and the majority of subjects would prefer a day-prior preparation with this preference highly dependent on the type of preparation they just consumed.

CONCLUSIONS

The cleanliness of the colons was not significantly different among the 3 split-dose preparations. Day-prior dosing of Gatorade and 357 g of PEG allowed the mucosa to be visualized as well as did the split-dose preparations.

How Efficacious Are Patient Education Interventions to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation is inadequate in a large proportion of colonoscopies, leading to multiple clinical and economic harms. While most patients receive some form of education before colonoscopy, there is no consensus on the best approach.

AIMS

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of patient education interventions to improve bowel preparation.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were: (1) a patient education intervention; (2) a primary aim of improving bowel preparation; (3) a validated bowel preparation scale; (4) a prospective design; (5) a concurrent control group; and, (6) adult participants. Study validity was assessed using a modified Downs and Black scale.

RESULTS

1,080 abstracts were screened. Seven full text studies met inclusion criteria, including 2,660 patients. These studies evaluated multiple delivery platforms, including paper-based interventions (three studies), videos (two studies), re-education telephone calls the day before colonoscopy (one study), and in-person education by physicians (one study). Bowel preparation significantly improved with the intervention in all but one study. All but one study were done in a single center. Validity scores ranged from 13 to 24 (maximum 27). Four of five abstracts and research letters that met inclusion criteria also showed improvements in bowel preparation. Statistical and clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Compared to usual care, patient education interventions appear efficacious in improving the quality of bowel preparation. However, because of the small scale of the studies and individualized nature of the interventions, results of these studies may not be generalizable to other settings. Healthcare practices should consider systematically evaluating their current bowel preparation education methods before undertaking new interventions.

Gastric residual volume after split-dose compared with evening-before polyethylene glycol bowel preparation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy results in superior preparation quality. However, some endoscopy units remain hesitant to prescribe split-dose preparation given theoretical concerns about possible aspiration caused by gastric residual fluid when a second dose is given close to the time of endoscopy. Our aim was to compare gastric residual volume (GRV) in patients taking split-dose bowel preparation and those taking preparation the evening before colonoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational comparison of GRV among random inpatients undergoing same-day EGD and colonoscopy either after a split-dose bowel preparation or after a bowel preparation the prior evening.

RESULTS

GRV was measured in 150 patients undergoing EGD and colonoscopy: 75 who completed a split-dose bowel preparation 2 to 3 hours before endoscopy and 75 who completed the bowel preparation regimen the prior evening. The mean GRV 2 to 3 hours after the last ingestion of bowel preparation among split-dose group patients was 21 ± 24 mL (± standard deviation; range, 0 to 125 mL), which was not different from the mean GRV of 24 ± 22 mL (range, 0 to 135 mL) in patients who ingested the preparation the prior evening (P = .08). GRV had no association with the presence of diabetes, gastroparesis, or opioid use.

CONCLUSIONS

GRV is the same after a split preparation and fasting for 2 to 3 hours or after preparation with overnight fasting. The data suggest that the risk of aspiration is identical after either preparation technique and thus that sedation for colonoscopy can be performed safely 2 hours after bowel preparation ingestion.

Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Is Superior to Single Dose for Colonoscopy Preparation: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background. The efficacy of colonoscopy in detecting abnormalities within the colon is highly dependent on the adequacy of the bowel preparation. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of PEG lavage and split-dose PEG lavage with specific emphasis on the cleanliness of the right colon. Methods. The study was a prospective, randomized, two-arm, controlled trial of 237 patients. Patients between the age of 50 and 75 years were referred to an outpatient university screening clinic for colonoscopy. Patients were allocated to receive either a single 4 L PEG lavage or a split-dose PEG lavage. Results. Overall, the bowel preparation was superior in the split-dose group compared with the single-dose group (mean Ottawa score 3.50 ± 2.89 versus 5.96 ± 3.53; P < 0.05) and resulted in less overall fluid in the colon. This effect was observed across all segments of the colon assessed. Conclusions. The current study supports use of a split-dose PEG lavage over a single large volume lavage for superior bowel cleanliness, which may improve polyp detection. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01610856.

Lubiprostone plus PEG electrolytes versus placebo plus PEG electrolytes for outpatient colonoscopy preparation: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Bowel preparation using large volume of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions is often poorly tolerated. Therefore, there are ongoing efforts to develop an alternative bowel cleansing regimen that should be equally effective and better tolerated. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of lubiprostone (versus placebo) plus PEG as a bowel cleansing preparation for colonoscopy. Our study was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled design. Patients scheduled for screening colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to lubiprostone (group 1) or placebo (group 2) plus 1 gallon of PEG. The primary endpoints were patient's tolerability and endoscopist's evaluation of the preparation quality. The secondary endpoint was to determine any reduction in the amount of PEG consumed in the lubiprostone group compared with the placebo group. One hundred twenty-three patients completed the study and were included in the analysis. There was no difference in overall cleanliness. The volume of PEG was similar in both the groups. The volume of PEG approached significance as a predictor of improved score for both the groups (P = 0.054). Lubiprostone plus PEG was similar to placebo plus PEG in colon cleansing and volume of PEG consumed. The volume of PEG consumed showed a trend toward improving the quality of the colon cleansing.

Colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies in Australia, and screening to detect it an earlier stage is cost-effective. Furthermore, detection and removal of precursor polyps can reduce incidence. Currently, there are limited data to determine the screening rate in Australia, but it is certainly lower than the 80% screening rate considered desirable. Whether colonoscopy is used as the screening test or to follow up positive results of an initial non-invasive test, it plays a fundamental role. Despite high sensitivity and specificity, it is expensive and invasive with measurable risk and is not acceptable as an initial test to many participants. It does not provide complete protection, and interval cancers between planned colonoscopies are associated with proximal location, origin in sessile serrated adenomas and operator-dependent factors. An essential component of colorectal screening is the measurement of colonoscopy quality indicators, such as caecal intubation and adenoma detection rates, which are known to be associated with the rate of interval cancer. The non-invasive screening test currently recommended in Australia is biennial testing for faecal occult blood between the ages of 50 and 75 using a faecal immunochemical test, with positives evaluated by colonoscopy. This is provided through the National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, currently for those at the ages of 50, 55, 60 and 65 years, with full implementation of biennial screening by 2020. To improve screening in Australia, the most fruitful approach may be to acknowledge that there is a choice of screening tests and to focus on the goal of improving overall participation rate and being able to measure this.

Contrasting Perspectives of Anesthesiologists and Gastroenterologists on the Optimal Time Interval between Bowel Preparation and Endoscopic Sedation

Background. The optimal time interval between the last ingestion of bowel prep and sedation for colonoscopy remains controversial, despite guidelines that sedation can be administered 2 hours after consumption of clear liquids. Objective. To determine current practice patterns among anesthesiologists and gastroenterologists regarding the optimal time interval for sedation after last ingestion of bowel prep and to understand the rationale underlying their beliefs. Design. Questionnaire survey of anesthesiologists and gastroenterologists in the USA. The questions were focused on the preferred time interval of endoscopy after a polyethylene glycol based preparation in routine cases and select conditions. Results. Responses were received from 109 anesthesiologists and 112 gastroenterologists. 96% of anesthesiologists recommended waiting longer than 2 hours until sedation, in contrast to only 26% of gastroenterologists. The main reason for waiting >2 hours was that PEG was not considered a clear liquid. Most anesthesiologists, but not gastroenterologists, waited longer in patients with history of diabetes or reflux. Conclusions. Anesthesiologists and gastroenterologists do not agree on the optimal interval for sedation after last drink of bowel prep. Most anesthesiologists prefer to wait longer than the recommended 2 hours for clear liquids. The data suggest a need for clearer guidelines on this issue.

Low-residue breakfast during the preparation for colonoscopy using a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution: a randomised non-inferiority trial

Goals

To test the hypothesis that the use of a low-residue breakfast (LRB) the day prior to colonoscopy was not inferior to consuming clear fluids alone (CFD) in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy with a polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation.

Background

Optimal colon cleansing is essential for complete visualisation of the mucosa during colonoscopy. Few studies have examined the effect of diet on the quality of bowel cleansing or tolerance in patients using a PEG bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Methods

Randomised, single-blinded non-inferiority trial. Adult patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy with PEG solution were randomised to an LRB followed by clear fluids or CFD using either a traditional or split-dose PEG solution for bowel preparation. The primary outcome was colon cleansing based on the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Score (OBPS).

Results

On an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, a total of 109 and 105 patients were included in the CFD and LRB arms, respectively, with 116 and 98 patients, respectively, for the per-protocol (PP) analysis. Although there was no difference in the mean total OBPS between the CFD or LRB arms in either the ITT or PP analysis, the threshold for non-inferiority was not met. Patient acceptance of the regimens was higher in the LRB arm than in the CFD arm in the ITT and PP analyses.

Conclusions

This study failed to show the non-inferiority of an LRB in patients receiving bowel preparation with a PEG-based solution. A CFD should be prescribed when using a PEG bowel preparation.

Trial registration number

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01454388).

A pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a split-dose bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVES

Feasibility of using split-dose bowel preparation in an inpatient setting has not been extensively studied. We conducted a single-centre multiphase study to (1) understand the perceived barriers to split-dose administration among nursing and providers, (2) develop and implement a split-dose electronic order set and (3) evaluate the use and impact of split-dose administration on 100 consecutive colonoscopies.

METHODS

Nurse/provider interviews were conducted to understand perceived concerns and potential barriers to split-dose preparation. Next, an order set containing specific nursing instructions was developed, disseminated and implemented into the electronic health record as the default order set for inpatient colonoscopies. Finally, 100 consecutive inpatients undergoing colonoscopy were interviewed to determine prep consumption, tolerability and rate of procedural delays due to inadequate preparation.

RESULTS

Survey results indicated perceived concerns about inpatients' ability to tolerate and complete the preparation, insufficient nursing support and complexity of preparation administration. Based on this, prep orders were adjusted to accommodate nursing concerns prior to implementation. 54% of inpatients actually completed the bowel preparation in split doses (SPLIT group); the remainder had the conventional full dose preparation (NON-SPLIT). Less procedural delay and a lower rate of additional laxatives use (13% vs 30.4%) were seen in the SPLIT versus NON-SPLIT group. Split-dose preparation was well tolerated among inpatients.

CONCLUSIONS

Split-dose bowel preparation can be implemented for inpatients undergoing colonoscopy. This multiphase study demonstrates the steps used to implement split-dose preparation at our institution and may provide others with strategies that they could use at their institutions.

Achieving the best bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Bowel preparation is a core issue in colonoscopy, as it is closely related to the quality of the procedure. Patients often find that bowel preparation is the most unpleasant part of the examination. It is widely accepted that the quality of cleansing must be excellent to facilitate detecting neoplastic lesions. In spite of its importance and potential implications, until recently, bowel preparation has not been the subject of much study. The most commonly used agents are high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte solution and sodium phosphate. There has been some confusion, even in published meta-analyses, regarding which of the two agents provides better cleansing. It is clear now that both PEG and sodium phosphate are effective when administered with proper timing. Consequently, the timing of administration is recognized as one of the central factors to the quality of cleansing. The bowel preparation agent should be administered, at least in part, a few hours in advance of the colonoscopy. Several low volume agents are available, and either new or modified schedules with PEG that usually improve tolerance. Certain adjuvants can also be used to reduce the volume of PEG, or to improve the efficacy of other agents. Other factors apart from the choice of agent can improve the quality of bowel cleansing. For instance, the effect of diet before colonoscopy has not been completely clarified, but an exclusively liquid diet is probably not required, and a low-fiber diet may be preferable because it improves patient satisfaction and the quality of the procedure. Some patients, such as diabetics and persons with heart or kidney disease, require modified procedures and certain precautions. Bowel preparation for pediatric patients is also reviewed here. In such cases, PEG remains the most commonly used agent. As detecting neoplasia is not the main objective with these patients, less intensive preparation may suffice. Special considerations must be made for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, including safety and diagnostic issues, so that the most adequate agent is chosen. Identifying neoplasia is one of the main objectives of colonoscopy with these patients, and the target lesions are often almost invisible with white light endoscopy. Therefore excellent quality preparation is required to find these lesions and to apply advanced methods such as chromoendoscopy. Bowel preparation for patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding represents a challenge, and the strategies available are also reviewed here.

Optimal bowel preparation--a practical guide for clinicians

High-quality bowel preparation is essential for effective colonoscopy. Bowel preparations are judged by their safety, efficacy and tolerability. Between efficacy and tolerability, efficacy is the clinical priority because inadequate preparations are disruptive and costly. Achieving high rates of adequate preparation depends first on using split-dose or same-day dosing. Patients who have medical predictors of inadequate preparation quality (for example chronic constipation) should be prescribed more aggressive preparations and patients who have factors that predict they are less likely to follow the instructions (such as English not being their first language) should receive intensified education. On the day of the procedure, patients with persistent brown effluent should be considered for large-volume enemas or additional oral preparation before proceeding with colonoscopy. During the procedure, preparation quality should be graded after the clean-up has been completed.

Quality bowel preparation for surveillance colonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease is a must

Colonoscopy is routinely performed in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) for surveillance of dysplasia. Thorough bowel preparation is necessary to facilitate lesion detection. Patients with IBD do not have poorer bowel preparation outcomes but may have decreased preparation tolerance affecting adherence to surveillance protocols. A low-fiber prepreparation diet may improve preparation tolerance without affecting preparation quality. The standard preparation regimen should consist of split-dose administration of a polyethylene glycol-based purgative. Low-volume, hyperosmolar purgatives may be considered in patients with previous preparation intolerance, heightened anxiety, stenotic disease, or dysmotility. Appropriate patient education is critical to enhance preparation quality.

Patient compliance and suboptimal bowel preparation with split-dose bowel regimen in average-risk screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Although split-dose bowel regimen is recommended in colon cancer screening and surveillance guidelines, implementation in clinical practice has seemingly lagged because of concerns of patient compliance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess patient compliance with the split-dose bowel regimen and assess patient- and preparation process-related factors associated with compliance and bowel preparation adequacy.

DESIGN

Prospective survey cohort.

SETTING

Tertiary care setting.

PATIENTS

Average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening between August 2011 and January 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Split-dose bowel regimen patient-reported compliance and bowel preparation adequacy with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score.

RESULTS

Surveys and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score data were completed in 462 participants; 15.4% were noncompliant with the split-dose bowel regimen, and suboptimal bowel preparation (score <5) was reported in 16% of all procedures. White (P = .009) and married (P = .01) subjects were least likely to be noncompliant, whereas Hispanic subjects and those who reported incomes of US$75,000 or less were most likely to be noncompliant (P = .004). Participants who were noncompliant with split-dosing were less likely to follow the other laxative instructions and more likely to have their colonoscopy appointment before 10:30 am. Compliance differed by bowel preparation type (P = .003, χ(2) test), with those who used MiraLAX showing the highest compliance, followed by polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution and other bowel preparations. Noncompliance with split-dose bowel preparation (odds ratio 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-14.2) was the strongest predictor of suboptimal bowel preparation.

LIMITATIONS

Patient self-report, performed at tertiary care center.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 1 in 7 patients do not comply with a split-dose bowel regimen. Ensuring compliance with the split-dose bowel regimen will reduce the risk of a suboptimal bowel preparation.

Low-volume morning-only polyethylene glycol with specially designed test meals versus standard-volume split-dose polyethylene glycol with standard diet for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a standard bowel preparation regimen for colonoscopy, but the large volume is burdensome to ingest and the night dose causes sleep disturbance. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a bowel preparation protocol using low-volume morning-only PEG with specially designed low-residue test meals (LV-PEG with TM) compared to a standard-volume split-dose PEG bowel preparation with a standard diet (SV-PEG with SD).

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, noninferiority study. The primary end point was bowel preparation quality according to the Ottawa scale. Tolerability, compliance, adverse events, sleep quality and polyp/adenoma detection were also assessed.

RESULTS

Among 197 patients analyzed (mean age 54.6 years, 51.3% men), 97 received LV-PEG with TM and 100 received SV-PEG with SD. The Ottawa score for the total colon was 3.76 ± 2.07 in the LV-PEG with TM group and 3.67 ± 1.57 in the SV-PEG with SD group (p = 0.723; difference 0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.60 to 0.42). The compliance was high (more than 95%) in both groups (p = 0.621). PEG was easier to ingest for patients in the LV-PEG with TM group compared to the SV-PEG with SD group [visual analogue scale (VAS) for difficulty: 4.64 ± 2.46 vs. 5.97 ± 2.42, respectively; p < 0.001]. Diet instructions were also easier to comply with for patients in the LV-PEG with TM group compared to the SV-PEG with SD group (VAS for difficulty: 3.11 ± 2.25 vs. 4.00 ± 2.39, respectively; p = 0.008). Patients in the LV-PEG with TM group had a lower incidence of abdominal bloating (p = 0.012) and better sleep quality (p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups regarding polyp and adenoma detection.

CONCLUSIONS

LV-PEG with TM and SV-PEG with SD have similar efficacy with regard to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. LV-PEG with TM provided easier PEG intake and diet compliance, less abdominal bloating and better sleep quality than SV-PEG with SD.

Colon cleansing for colonoscopy 2013: current status

Colonoscopy requires adequate bowel cleansing to be safe and effective. There are a variety of options available. This review will focus on highlighting new products, administration techniques emphasizing the value of split-dose and same-day regimens, safety, and options for inadequate cleansing.

2 L versus 4 L of PEG3350 + electrolytes for outpatient colonic preparation: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Low-volume bowel preparations are ideal to ensure patient compliance, thus enabling high-quality examinations to be achieved.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the bowel-cleansing efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose 2 L PEG3350 + electrolytes (PEG3350e) with 15 mg bisacodyl versus split-dose 4 L PEG3350e.

DESIGN

Single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Single site, university-affiliated tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

A total of 325 consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

2 L of PEG3350e with 15 mg bisacodyl versus 4 L of PEG3350e, both given in a split-dose fashion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy and tolerability of a split dose of 2 L of PEG3350e with 15 mg bisacodyl. Efficacy was assessed by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. Patient satisfaction and tolerability were assessed by using a short survey.

RESULTS

A total of 325 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (51% male) with a mean ± standard deviation age of 56 ± 11.2 years. No statistically significant difference in cleanliness was found by using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (intention-to-treat, P = .381; per-protocol, P = .387) and the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (intention-to-treat, P = .285; per-protocol, P = .334). Participants receiving 2 L of PEG3350e found the preparation easy to consume and were willing to repeat the procedure more often than the 4-L group (P < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study looking at outpatient colonoscopies; unable to comment on adenoma detection rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel-cleansing efficacy was similar in both the 2-L and 4-L PEG3350e groups; however, patient tolerability and willingness to repeat preparation were statistically greater with the 2 L of PEG3350e with 15 mg bisacodyl regimen.

The impact of bowel cleansing on follow-up recommendations in average-risk patients with a normal colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Repeat colonoscopy in 10 years after a normal screening colonoscopy is recommended in an average-risk patient, and it has been proposed by American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) as a quality measure. However, there are little quantitative data about adherence to this recommendation or factors that may improve adherence. Our study quantifies adherence to this recommendation and the impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adherence.

METHODS

In this retrospective database study, endoscopy reports of average-risk individuals ≥50 years old with a normal screening colonoscopy were reviewed. Quality of colon cleansing was recorded using the Aronchick scale as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Main outcome measurements were quality of bowel preparation and recommendation for timing of repeat colonoscopy. Recommendations were considered consistent with guidelines if 10-year follow-up was documented after excellent, good, or fair prep or if ≤1-year follow-up was recommended after poor prep.

RESULTS

Among 1,387 eligible patients, recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy inconsistent with guidelines were seen in 332 (23.9%) subjects. By bowel preparation quality, 15.3% of excellent/good, 75% of fair, and 31.6% of poor bowel preparations were assigned recommendations inconsistent with guidelines (P<0.001). Patients with fair (odds ratio=18.0; 95% confidence interval 12.0-28.0) were more likely to have recommendations inconsistent with guidelines compared with patients with excellent/good preps.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations inconsistent with guidelines for 10-year intervals after a normal colonoscopy occurred in >20% of patients. Minimizing "fair" bowel preparations may be a helpful intervention to improve adherence to these recommendations.

[Split-dose sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate for morning colonoscopies performed 2 to 6 hours after fluid intake]

BACKGROUND

Split dosage of bowel preparations has been shown to substantially improve bowel cleansing.

AIM

To compare the split dose (SD) sodium picosulphate/magnesium oxide/anhydrous citric acid (Citrafleet(®)) regimen for morning colonoscopies with standard cleansing the day before.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients were randomized to receive Citrafleet(®) the day before colonoscopy or SD, in whom the second half was administered on an individual basis from 2 to 6 hours before the procedure. No bisacodyl was administered. All procedures were performed with non-anesthesiologist administered propofol sedation. The Boston scale was used to assess the quality of bowel preparation (adequate cleansing if score ≥ 6, with no score of 0/1 in any segment).

RESULTS

A total of 193 patients were included. Overall bowel cleansing was significantly better in the SD group (7 vs. 5.2, p<0.001), as well as in the cecum (2.4 vs. 1.4, p < 0.001), ascending colon (2.5 vs. 1.6, p<0.001) and transverse colon (2.4 vs. 2, p=0.004). A significant proportion of SD patients had adequate bowel cleansing (71% vs. 30%, p<0.001). Patients in the SD group drank a greater amount of liquid (4.9 vs. 4 liters, p=0.006) and more frequently perceived the cleansing process to be easy or very easy to complete (89 vs. 68%, p=0.04), although they slept significantly fewer hours (6.5 vs. 7.9, p<0.001). No bronchoaspiration pneumonia was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

SD Citrafleet(®) 2 to 6 hours before colonoscopy increased the rate of procedures with adequate bowel cleansing by 40%, especially in the proximal colon, allowed more liquids to be drunk and increased the perception of ease in completing the preparation, with no sedation-related complications.

Split dose and MiraLAX-based purgatives to enhance bowel preparation quality becoming common recommendations in the US

OBJECTIVES

Rates of suboptimal bowel preparation up to 30% have been reported. Liberalized precolonoscopy diet, split dose purgative, and the use of MiraLAX-based bowel preparation (MBBP) prior to colonoscopy are recently developed measures to improve bowel preparation quality but little is known about the utilization prevalence of these measures. We examined the patterns of utilization of these newer approaches to improve precolonoscopy bowel preparation quality among American gastroenterologists.

METHODS

Surveys were distributed to a random sample of members of the American College of Gastroenterologists. Participants were queried regarding demographics, practice characteristics, and bowel preparation recommendations including recommendations for liberal dietary restrictions, split dose purgative, and the use of MBBP. Approaches were evaluated individually and in combination.

RESULTS

Of the 999 eligible participants, 288 responded; 15.2% recommended a liberal diet, 60.0% split dose purgative, and 37.4% MBBP. Diet recommendations varied geographically with gastroenterologists in the West more likely to recommend a restrictive diet (odds ratio [OR] 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-7.67) and physicians in the Northeast more likely to recommend a liberal diet more likely. Older physicians more often recommended split dosing (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.04-2.97). Use of MBBP was more common in suburban settings (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.23-3.73). Evidence suggests that physicians in private practice were more likely to prescribe split dosing (p = 0.03) and less often recommended MBBP (p = 0.02). Likelihood of prescribing MBBP increased as weekly volume of colonoscopy increased (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

To enhance bowel preparation quality American gastroenterologists commonly use purgative split dosing. The use of MBBP is becoming more prevalent while a liberalized diet is infrequently recommended. Utilization of these newer approaches to improve bowel preparation quality varies by physician and practice characteristics. Further evaluation of the patterns of usage of these measures is indicated.

Split-dosed MiraLAX/Gatorade is an effective, safe, and tolerable option for bowel preparation in low-risk patients: a randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVES

MiraLAX with Gatorade is a low-volume bowel preparation regimen that has been used widely in community practice and is anecdotally better tolerated than Golytely. Despite its widespread use, there are little data on the efficacy and tolerability of this solution and no safety data in the literature. The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of single-dosed and split-dosed regimens of MiraLAX/Gatorade with Golytely for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

METHODS

Adults presenting for outpatient colonoscopy were screened for enrollment into this single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Patients with severe cardiac or renal disease and patients with electrolyte abnormalities were excluded. Subjects were randomized into four groups: 4 l Golytely single-dosed (Go-Si), 4 l Golytely split-dosed (Go-Sp), 238 g MiraLAX in 64 oz of Gatorade single-dosed (Mlax-Si), and MiraLAX/Gatorade split-dosed (Mlax-Sp) groups. Laboratory data including complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and osmolality were collected before the day of bowel preparation and just before the start of colonoscopy. Subjects completed a survey assessing taste and tolerability of the solution. Colonoscopies were recorded using video recording software and de-identified. Colonoscopy videos were evaluated for efficacy of cleansing by two blinded endoscopists. Two validated bowel preparation scales were used to assess bowel cleansing: the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS; 0-9 best) and Ottawa Scale (0-14 worst).

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were evaluated in this study (86.2% male, mean age 59.4). Of these, 57 subjects were randomized to the Go-Si group, 51 to Go-Sp group, 60 to Mlax-Si group, and 54 to Mlax-Sp group. There was no significant difference in age, gender, or timing of colonoscopy between the groups (P>0.05). Mean BBPS scores were: Go-Si=6.07, Go-Sp=8.33, Mlax-Si=6.62, and Mlax-Sp=8.01. Mean Ottawa score for the groups were: Go-Si group=6.77, Go-Sp=4.12, Mlax-Si=6.25, and Mlax-Sp=4.8. Go-Sp resulted in significantly better cleansing than Go-Si (P<0.01). Mlax-Sp resulted in significantly better cleansing than Mlax-Si (P<0.01). There was no significant difference in BBPS between Go-Sp and Mlax-Sp. There were no clinically significant electrolyte changes from baseline in any subject in any group after bowel prep (P>0.05). Subjects rated the taste and overall experience of Mlax/Gatorade preparation better than Golytely (P<0.01). In all, 96.8% of Mlax/Gatorade subjects were willing to repeat the same preparation vs. 75% for Golytely subjects (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Split-dosed MiraLAX/Gatorade was an effective, safe, and tolerable option for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in the low-risk patients in this study. MiraLAX/Gatorade appears to be more tolerable than Golytely as a bowel cleansing regimen and was the preferred agent by the patients in this study.

Enhancing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: an integrative review

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Currently, colonoscopy is considered the gold standard to detect colorectal cancer. Poor bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy compromises the quality and efficacy of this procedure, affecting patient outcomes and increasing overall costs. With up to 25% of patients undergoing colonoscopy having poor bowel preparation, interventions to enhance the quality of bowel preparations are vital to improving clinical practice. Through an extensive review of the current literature, split-dose bowel preparation regimens appear to be the most well-supported and plausible intervention for meaningful change in efforts to enhance bowel preparation. Several studies of high quality and strength have drawn consistent conclusions that split-dose bowel preparations result in significantly better bowel cleansing than traditional day-prior bowel preparation regimens. Strengths, limitations, gaps in the current literature, and areas for future research are identified, which can help to direct future studies needed to strengthen the evidence and determine further practice initiatives to address the problem of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Split-dose picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid solution markedly enhances colon cleansing before colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid solution is a small-volume agent for colon cleansing before colonoscopy that is extremely well tolerated by patients, safe, and efficacious. Studies of other cleansing agents have suggested that split-dose regimens may further enhance efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether split-dosing of picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid solution increases bowel cleansing efficacy while maintaining tolerability and safety.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial.

SETTING

Outpatient tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

A total of 236 patients underwent colonoscopy (mean age 56 years, 53.8% female).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients in the traditional arm (n = 123) consumed 1 sachet of solution at 5:00 pm and 10:00 pm the night before the colonoscopy. Patients in the split-dose arm (n = 127) consumed 1 sachet at 7:00 pm the night before and another sachet 4 hours before their colonoscopy appointment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) score, Aronchick score, safety, tolerability.

RESULTS

The 113 and 109 patients in the split-dose and traditional arms, respectively, had OBPS scores for analysis. Overall, the OBPS scores in the split-dose group were significantly improved compared with the traditional dose group (4.05 vs 5.51, P < .001). This was mostly attributed to improvements in right-sided colon cleansing (1.22 in split-dose vs 2.14 in traditional arm, P < .001). Both regimens were well tolerated by patients, and no safety issues were identified.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center study. Disturbances in sleep related to the preparation were not assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

The split-dose regimen of picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid solution is superior to the traditional dosing regimen for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00885274.).

Improving protection against proximal colon cancer by colonoscopy

Colonoscopy protection against proximal cancer can be achieved, but the level of protection has thus far been less than left colon protection. Improved proximal protection begins with effective right colon bowel preparation, best achieved by split dosing the preparation regimen. Cecal intubation in screening examinations should exceed 95%, and must be documented by photography. Examiners must be proficient in detection of subtle right colon lesions, including serrated lesions as well as flat and depressed adenomas. Effective examination should be demonstrated by meeting recommended targets for adenoma detection.

Different bowel preparation schedule leads to different diagnostic yield of proximal and nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm at screening colonoscopy in average-risk population

BACKGROUND

Accumulating evidence indicates that the timing of bowel preparation is crucial, but its impact on the diagnostic yield of proximal or nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the impact of the timing of bowel preparation on the adenoma detection rate for nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm at colonoscopy.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective analysis of a screening colonoscopy cohort database.

SETTING

The investigation was conducted at a screening colonoscopy unit in an university hospital.

PATIENTS

A consecutive series of 3079 subjects who received primary screening colonoscopy with different timing of bowel preparation was analyzed.

INTERVENTION

Different timing of bowel preparation (same day vs prior day) was studied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes measured were patient demographics, timing of bowel preparation, colon-cleansing levels, diagnostic yields of colonoscopy, including adenoma, advanced adenoma, and nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm.

RESULTS

There were a total of 1552 subjects in the morning group and 1527 in the evening group. More subjects had proximal adenoma (175, 11.3% vs 138, 9.0%, P = .04), advanced adenoma (68, 4.4% vs 46, 13.0%, P = .044), nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm (98, 6.3% vs 67, 4.4%, P = .018), proximal nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm (71, 4.6% vs 40, 2.6%, P = .004), and advanced nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm (25, 1.6% vs 12, 0.8%, P = .036) detected by same-day preparation. On multivariate regression analysis, the adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the same-day group regarding overall and proximal adenoma (OR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.00-1.50; OR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.05-1.74), advanced adenoma (OR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.04-2.28), overall, proximal, and advanced nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm (OR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.06-2.08; OR 1.82, 95% CI: 1.20-2.75; OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.12-3.37). The adenoma detection rate was also significantly different among endoscopists.

LIMITATION

This was a single-center, nonrandomized trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving bowel preparation quality by same-day preparation may lead to enhanced detection of overall, proximal, and advanced nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasm.

Efficacy and tolerability of split-dose PEG compared with split-dose aqueous sodium phosphate for outpatient colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for a high-quality, effective, and safe colonoscopy. The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy and tolerability of split-dose polyethylene glycol with aqueous sodium phosphate for outpatients who underwent scheduled colonoscopy.

METHODS

In this prospective trial, 207 outpatients (aged between 18 and 65 years, with normal renal function, at low risk for renal damage) were randomized to receive split-dose preparation of PEG (2 L/2 L) (N = 103) or NaP (45 mL/45 mL, 12 h apart) (N = 104) without strict diet restriction the day before colonoscopy. The bowel cleansing efficacy of preparations was rated according to the Ottawa scale and the patient tolerability was assessed using a patient questionnaire.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the two groups for the mean total score using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale (P = 0.181). Significantly greater residual colonic fluid was observed in the split-dose PEG group (1.24 ± 0.49) than in the NaP group (1.04 ± 0.53) (P = 0.007). Patient compliance, preference, and acceptance of a two preparation regimen were similar with no significant differences (P = 0.095, P = 0.280 and P = 0.408, respectively). The overall incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups; however, the split-dose PEG group tended to have fewer adverse events (52/103 [50.5%], 66/104 [63.5%], P = 0.059) and had significantly less nausea and vomiting (P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Split-dose PEG, compared with split-dose NaP, is associated with more residual colonic fluid, but produces equivalent colon cleansing efficacy and results in less nausea and vomiting, which might improve patient tolerability (clinical trial registration number NCT01229800).

Development and validation of a novel patient educational booklet to enhance colonoscopy preparation

OBJECTIVES

The success of colonoscopy depends on high-quality bowel preparation by patients; yet inadequate preparation is common. We developed and tested an educational booklet to improve bowel preparation quality.

METHODS

We conducted patient cognitive interviews to identify knowledge and belief barriers to colonoscopy preparation. We used these interviews to create an educational booklet to enhance preparatory behaviors. We then prospectively randomized patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy at a VA Medical Center to receive usual instructions vs. the booklet before colonoscopy. Patients in both groups received standard pharmacy instructions for single-dose bowel preparation; the protocol did not specify which purgatives to prescribe. The primary outcome was preparation quality based on blinded ratings using the validated Ottawa score. We performed bivariate analyses to compare mean scores between groups using a t-test, and logistic regression to measure the booklet effect on preparation quality, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 436 patients were randomized between arms. In an intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome, mean Ottawa scores were superior in patients allocated to booklet vs. controls (P=0.03). An intention-to-treat analysis of the secondary outcome revealed a "good" preparation in 68 vs. 46% of booklet and control patients, respectively (P=0.054). In a per-protocol analysis limited to patients who actually received the booklet, preparation was good in 76 vs. 46% patients, respectively (P<0.00001). Regression analysis revealed that booklet receipt increased the odds of good preparation by 3.7 times (95% confidence interval=2.3-5.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of a novel educational booklet considerably improves preparation quality in patients receiving single-dose purgatives. The effect of the booklet on split-dose purgatives remains untested and will be evaluated in future research.