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

Predictive Model of Functional Exercise Compliance of Patients with Breast Cancer Based on Decision Tree

OBJECTIVE

Regular functional exercise can help recover the functions of upper limb for patients with breast cancer. By finding the influencing factors of functional exercise compliance and constructing a predictive model, patients with a poor functional exercise compliance can be better identified. This study aims to find out the factors influencing the functional exercise compliance of patients with breast cancer and build a predictive model based on decision tree.

METHODS

Convenience sampling was used at two tertiary hospitals in Shantou from August 2020 to March 2021. Data of patients with breast cancer patient was obtained from questionnaires and based on demographics, Constant-Murley Score, Functional Exercise Compliance Scale for Postoperative Breast Cancer Patients, Champion Health Belief Model Scale, Social Support Rating Scale, Disease Perception Questionnaire and Family Care Index Questionnaire. Possible influencing factors of functional exercise compliance were analyzed using correlation analysis as well as univariate and binary logistic regression analysis through SPSS v25, and a CHAID decision tree was used to construct a predictive model on training, validation and test sets via SPSS Modeler v18 at a ratio of 6:2:2. Prediction accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and AUC were used to analyze the efficacy of the predictive model.

RESULTS

A total of 227 valid samples were collected, of which 145 were assessed with a poor compliance (63.9%). According to a logistic regression analysis, perceived benefits, time after surgery and self-efficacy were influencing factors. The prediction accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and AUC of the predictive model, based on a CHAID decision tree analysis, were 70.73%, 57.1%, 77.8% and 0.81 respectively.

CONCLUSION

The predictive model, based on a CHAID decision tree analysis, had a moderate predictive efficacy, which could be used as a clinical auxiliary tool for clinical nurses to predict patients' functional exercise compliance.

Electrolyte disturbances after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies to explore pooled prevalence and magnitude of electrolyte changes after bowel preparation for colonoscopy based on the most recent guidelines.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane were queried for population-based studies examining changes in electrolyte values after bowel preparation, published by July 1, 2021. We report prevalences of serum hypokalemia, hyponatremia, hyperphosphatemia, and hypocalcemia after bowel preparation and changes in mean electrolyte values after vs. before bowel preparation using sodium phosphate (NaP) and polyethylene glycol (PEG).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria; 2386 unique patients were included. Overall, hypokalemia was found in 17.2% (95% CI 6.7, 30.9) in the NaP group vs. 4.8% (95% CI 0.27, 13.02) in the PEG group. The magnitude of potassium decrease after NaP bowel preparation was significantly increased compared to PEG (mean difference -0.38; 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27, P < 0.001). No study reported on major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypokalemia was found in 17.2% of patients after bowel preparation with NaP and in 4.8% of patients with PEG, a finding that is clinically relevant with respect to choosing the type of bowel preparation. The magnitude of the potassium decrease after NaP was significantly higher compared to PEG. These data provide the evidence that supports the recommendation of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy against routine use of NaP for bowel preparation.

Effect of an intensive patient educational programme on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a single-blind randomised controlled trial

Objective

Preprocedural bowel preparation is necessary for optimal colonoscopy visualisation. However, it is challenging to achieve high-quality bowel preparation among patients scheduled for colonoscopy. This study aims to evaluate the impact of an intensive patient educational programme on the quality of bowel preparation.

Design

An accessor-blinded randomised controlled trial was carried out at the outpatient surgical clinic of a tertiary hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to the control group (received standard written and verbal instructions) or the experimental group (received an intensive and structured educational programme). All subjects completed a questionnaire before colonoscopy to assess their compliance, acceptability, and tolerability towards bowel preparation regime. Quality of bowel preparation was determined using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

Results

A total of 300 subjects who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were recruited. The experimental group had a significantly higher proportion of good quality bowel preparation than the control group (98.7% vs 52.3%, p<0.001). The median total BBPS score was also significantly higher in the experimental group (8 vs 5, p<0.001). Factors associated with good quality of bowel preparation included educational programme (OR: 22.79, 95% CI: 4.23 to 122.85, p<0.001), compliance to bowel cleansing agent (OR: 24.98, 95% CI 3.12 to 199.71, p<0.001), very difficult acceptability of preparation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38, p<0.001), tolerability towards bowel preparation (OR: 4.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 17.20, p<0.011) and hypomotility drugs (OR: 3.03, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.91, p<0.05).

Conclusion

An intensive patient educational programme can significantly improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Inadequate Bowel Cleansing Efficacy of Split-dose Polyethylene Glycol for Colonoscopy in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Prospective and Blinded Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) is considered a standard bowel preparation regimen for colonoscopy in the general population. However, it is not clear whether the regimen is optimal for colonoscopy in diabetic patients. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of split-dose PEG for diabetic versus nondiabetic patients.

METHODS

This is a single-center, prospective, investigator-blinded study. A total of 55 consecutive nondiabetic and 50 diabetic patients ingested 2 L PEG solution on the day before the procedure and then 2 L of the solution on the day of colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation was graded using the Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in bowel preparation quality, with a worse preparation except for mid colon in diabetic group (total score: 7.06±1.69 vs. 5.54±1.97, P<0.001; right colon: 2.28±0.57 vs. 1.81±0.72, P<0.001; mid colon: 1.70±0.54 vs. 1.56±0.66, P=0.253; rectosigmoid colon: 1.70±0.76 vs. 1.14±0.62, P<0.001; fluid volume: 1.38±0.53 vs. 1.01±0.59, P=0.001). About 70% of nondiabetic patients had an adequate preparation compared with only 40% of diabetic patients (P=0.003). Diabetic group had longer cecal intubation time (6.4±3.6 vs. 4.5±2.4, P=0.002) and total procedure time (22.1±7.6 vs. 18.1±8.5, P=0.015). Compliance and adverse events were not significantly different. In diabetic group, inadequate bowel preparation had a significant association with higher fasting plasma glucose (136.9±21.8 vs. 121.8±19.4 mg/dL, P=0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetic patients had a worse preparation quality and longer cecal intubation and total procedure time compared with nondiabetic patients. These data suggest that split-dose PEG preparation regimen is not sufficient for optimal bowel preparation in diabetic patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Split-Dose Preparations Are Superior to Day-Before Bowel Cleansing Regimens: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are different regimens of preparing the colon for colonoscopy, including polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate, picosulfate, or oral sulfate solutions. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of split-dose vs other colon preparation regimens, the optimal products for use, and the most effective preparation volumes.

METHODS

We performed systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of knowledge databases, from January 1980 to March 2014, for published results from randomized trials that assessed split-dose regimens vs day-before colonoscopy preparation. We excluded studies that included pediatric or hospitalized patients, or patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The primary outcome was efficacy of bowel cleansing. Secondary outcomes included side effects or complications, outcomes of procedures, patients' willingness to repeat the procedure, and the amount of time required for patients to resume daily activities.

RESULTS

We identified 47 trials that fulfilled our inclusion criteria (n = 13,487 patients). Split-dose preparations provided significantly better colon cleansing than day-before preparations (odds ratio [OR], 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-3.39), as well as day-before preparations with PEG (OR, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-4.63), sodium phosphate (OR, 9.34; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-41.11), or picosulfate (OR, 3.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-6.45). PEG split-dose preparations of 3 L or more yielded greater bowel cleanliness than lower-volume split-dose regimens (OR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.46), but only in intention-to-treat analysis. A higher proportion of patients were willing to repeat split-dose vs day-before cleansing (OR, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.46), and low-volume split-dose preparations vs high-volume split-dose preparation (OR, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-11.10). There were no differences between preparations in other secondary outcome measures. However, there was variation among studies in definitions and main and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on meta-analysis, split-dose regimens increase the quality of colon cleansing and are preferred by patients compared with day-before preparations. Additional research is required to evaluate oral sulfate solution-based and PEG low-volume regimens further.

Optimizing bowel cleansing for colonoscopy

Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for complete examination of the colon mucosa during colonoscopy. Suboptimal bowel preparation has potential adverse consequences, such as missed pathologic abnormalities, the need for repeated procedures, and increased procedure-related complications. Several factors can predict individuals at increased risk for inadequate bowel preparation. If predictors of inadequate bowel preparation are identified, then education should be intensified and a more aggressive bowel regimen recommended. On completion of this article, you should be able to (1) define the frequency of inadequate colon preparations, (2) identify predictors of poor bowel preparation, and (3) use a more aggressive bowel regimen when clinically indicated.

[Bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Any significant progress on the horizon?]

Colonoscopy is the method of choice for colorectal cancer screening. To be effective, screening colonoscopy must have high quality standards. The key element is the quality of the preparation. However, up to 20% of patients are inadequately prepared and, at present, anterograde washing is the least tolerated part of the procedure. In the choice of preparation, safety is a prerequisite and efficacy is a priority. Tolerance is a secondary but nevertheless influential factor in the quality of preparation and has consequently been the primary focus of many recent studies. In the last few years, a rapidly increasing number of studies have evaluated new drugs, dosages and adjuvant therapies to improve efficacy and tolerability. These studies have collaterally shown that inadequate preparation and lack of adherence to the prescribed regimen can be partially predicted, making it essential to identify this patient subgroup and invest the necessary effort in their instruction. New individualized and flexible approaches are expected for the different clinical scenarios. The search for the ideal colonoscopy preparation, which would be tolerable, safe and above all effective, remains open.

1-day bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol 3350 is as effective and safe as a 3-day preparation for colonoscopy in children

BACKGROUND

Polyethylene Glycol 3350 (Miralax®) without electrolytes is commonly used for 3-4 days as bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children. One-day preparation has been anecdotally reported to be effective but there are few published prospective studies comparing the safety and efficacy of one-day preparation with that of three-day preparation. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of a one-day bowel preparation with Miralax® with that of a three-day preparation for colonoscopy in children.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial with children age 2-21 yrs. undergoing elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive Miralax® for either one or three days. Children with known electrolyte disturbances, dehydration, fecal impaction, metabolic or renal disease were excluded. A metabolic panel was monitored before and after bowel preparation. Subjects reported the tolerability and side effects of Miralax® via a survey. Effectiveness of the bowel preparation was assessed using a stool diary and a bowel cleansing scale during colonoscopy.

RESULTS

32 subjects were enrolled; 18 received one-day bowel preparation and 14 received 3-day preparation. There were no differences between the groups in efficacy of bowel preparation based on colonoscopic grading or the safety of the preparation. One-day preparation was as well tolerated as three-day preparation.

CONCLUSION

Miralax® used one day as bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy in children is safe, effective and well tolerated. Physicians should consider offering a one-day option for bowel preparation, which would allow children to miss fewer days of school prior to colonoscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02174497. Date of Registration: 02 May, 2014 URL of register: clinicaltrials.gov.

Development and validation of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Bowel cleansing is paramount for colonoscopy quality. Unfortunately, an adequate bowel preparation is often limited by side effects and/or patient's intolerance to bowel preparation solutions. Comparisons among different preparations are limited by the lack of validated instruments designed to assess patient's tolerability.

AIM

To develop and validate a simple, comprehensive instrument to assess bowel preparation tolerability in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

Development and validation by phases: Phase I (bibliographic search and questionnaire design); Phase II (assessment of content validity and modification of the questionnaire); Phase III (assessment of reproducibility, final validation, and definitive version of the questionnaire).

RESULTS

The initial draft of the questionnaire was generated based on a systematic literature review and feedback from a panel of consultants. Content validity was tested in a focus group of 25 patients undergoing colonoscopy. Patients' suggestions were reviewed by the research team and a second draft of the questionnaire was generated. Final validation and reproducibility were successfully tested (agreement: 86-100%, kappa: 0.77-1.00) in a convenience sample of 100 patients undergoing bowel preparation with different cleansing solutions.

CONCLUSION

The Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire is a simple, comprehensive instrument suitable to evaluate the tolerability of various types of bowel preparations.

Factors related to bowel cleansing failure before colonoscopy: Results of the PACOME study

BACKGROUND

The factors associated with inadequate bowel cleansing leading to colonoscopy failure are not well known.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a multicentre, prospective, observational case-control study in order to identify these factors.

METHODS

Investigators included one patient with colonoscopy failure due to inadequate bowel cleansing (failure group) and the following patient with complete colonoscopy (success group). Data related to demographics, medical history, and preparation were collected and compared. Factors associated with bowel cleansing failure were identified by multivariate logistical regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 101 gastroenterologists included 202 patients from 1 November 2009 to 15 January 2010. There was no difference between both groups with regards to baseline characteristics. In univariate analysis, factors significantly associated with bowel cleansing failure were vomiting during preparation (p = 0.0007), incomplete intake of the preparation (p = 0.002), and constipation (p = 0.02). Type and timing of preparation were not significantly different between groups. In multivariate analysis, incomplete intake of the preparation (OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.2-17.3), constipation (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.2-14.9), and treatment with neuroleptics or antidepressants (OR 9.9 (95% CI 1.4-71.0) were independent predictors of colonoscopy failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors associated with bowel cleansing failure were incomplete intake of the preparation, constipation, and treatment with psychotropic drugs. Interventions to reduce poor colonoscopy preparations should be targeted at these at-risk patients.

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.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Tolerability between Same-day Picosulfate and Split-dose Polyethylene Glycol Bowel Preparation for Afternoon Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Investigator-blinded Trial

Background/Aims

In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability between same-day bowel preparation protocols using 2 sachets of Picosulfate and a 4 L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopy.

Methods

The study had a single-center, prospective, randomized, and investigator-blinded, non-inferiority design. We evaluated bowel preparation quality according to the Ottawa scale, patient tolerability, compliance, incidence of adverse events, sleep quality, and polyp/adenoma detection rate.

Results

Among the 196 patients analyzed (mean age, 55.3 years; 50.3% men), 97 received the same-day regimen of 2 sachets of picosulfate (group A) and 99 received the 4 L split-dose PEG regimen (group B). The Ottawa score of the total colon was 4.05±1.56 in group A and 3.80±1.55 in group B (P=0.255). The proportion of patients having adequate bowel preparation in the same-day picosulfate group (61.5%) was slightly less than the 4 L PEG group (71.3%); however, the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.133). Tolerability of the group A regimen was superior to that of the group B regimen (P<0.000). The same-day picosulfate regimen was associated with fewer adverse events, such as abdominal bloating (P=0.037) and better sleep quality (P<0.000).

Conclusions

The same-day picosulfate regimen and the 4 L split-dose PEG regimen had similar efficacy in bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopy. However, the same-day picosulfate regimen was easier to administer, produced fewer adverse events, and enabled better sleep quality.

The modern bowel preparation in colonoscopy

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for optimal colonoscopy. Suboptimal bowel preparation occurs in 25% to 40% of cases and is associated with canceled procedures, prolonged procedure time, incomplete examination, increased cost, and missed pathology. There are several effective formulations for colon cleansing with a good safety profile. Split dosing should be implemented whenever possible in an effort to enhance tolerance and adherence, and improve mucosal visibility and overall quality of the examination. In this review, modern bowel preparations are discussed including their mechanism of action, mode of use, safety, and how to optimize outcomes.

4-Liter split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to other bowel preparations, based on systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adequate bowel cleansing is an important determinant of the efficacy of screening colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solutions are used commonly in bowel preparation, but their poor palatability and large volumes (4 L) influence compliance. Adjunct therapies, such as bisacodyl, split-dose regimens, and lower-volume regimens have been tested. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether a 4-L split dose of PEG is better than others for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database, recent abstracts from major conference proceedings, references from selected reviews and randomized trials (http://clinicaltrials.gov), and Google Scholar, through September 2011, for high-quality, randomized trials that compared 4-L split-dose PEG without adjunct therapy with other bowel preparation methods. Nine of 2477 trials considered were used in the analysis. We calculated pooled estimates of bowel preparation quality (primary outcome: excellent or good), preparation compliance, favorable overall experiences, willingness to repeat same preparation, and side effects. We calculated pooled estimates of odds ratios by fixed- and random-effects models. We also assessed heterogeneity among studies and publication bias.

RESULTS

The overall pooled odds ratio for excellent or good bowel preparation quality for 4-L split-dose PEG was 3.46, compared with other methods (95% confidence interval, 2.45-4.89; P < .01). Although there was significant heterogeneity in results among studies, 7 of 9 reported a significant benefit from the 4-L split-dose PEG preparation. There were no significant differences between PEG and others in preparation compliance, favorable overall experience, willingness to repeat the same preparation, abdominal cramping, nausea, or sleep disturbance. There was no significant publication bias based on funnel plot.

CONCLUSIONS

A meta-analysis showed that 4-L split-dose PEG is better than other bowel preparation methods for colonoscopy. Significant heterogeneity among studies might result from differences in patient demographics and protocols. A 4-L split dose of PEG should be considered the standard with which new bowel preparation methods are compared.

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.).