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

Difficult colonoscopy: air, carbon dioxide, or water insufflation?

Background/Aims

This study aimed to compare tolerance to air, carbon dioxide, or water insufflation in patients with anticipated difficult colonoscopy (young, thin, obese individuals, and patients with prior abdominal surgery or irradiation).

Methods

Patients with body mass index (BMI) less than 18 kg/m² or more than 30 kg/m², or who had undergone previous abdominal or pelvic surgeries were randomized to air, carbon dioxide, or water insufflation during colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was cecal intubation with mild pain (less than 5 on visual analogue scale [VAS]), without use of sedation.

Results

The primary end point was achieved in 32.7%, 43.8%, and 84.9% of cases with air, carbon dioxide and water insufflation (P<0.001). The mean pain scores were 5.17, 4.72, and 3.93 on the VAS for air, carbon dioxide, and water insufflation (P<0.001). The cecal intubation rate or procedure time did not differ significantly between the 3 groups.

Conclusions

Water insufflation was superior to air or carbon dioxide for pain tolerance. This was seen in the subgroups with BMI <18 kg/m² and the post-surgical group, but not in the group with BMI >30 kg/m².

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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and acceptability of an evening-before regimens of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) as bowel cleansers and to explore the results of a same-day regimen of SPMC.

METHODS

Multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded, parallel study carried out in subjects who were 18-80 years old and were undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy for the first time. The primary outcome was treatment success, which was a composite outcome defined by (1) the evaluation of the overall preparation quality as "excellent" or "good" by two blinded independent evaluators with the Fleet(®) Grading Scale for Bowel Cleansing and (2) a subject's acceptability rating of "easy to take" or "tolerable." The primary outcome was analyzed using a logistic regression with site, gender, and age group (age ≥65 years and <65 years) as factors.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety subjects were included in the efficacy evaluation. Although treatment success was significantly higher in subjects assigned to the evening-before regimen of SPMC vs. subjects assigned to the evening-before PEG, when evaluating the two individual components for treatment success, there were significant differences in the ease of completion but not in the quality of preparation. The same-day SPMC regimen was superior to both the evening-before regimen of SPMC and PEG in terms of the quality of preparation, especially regarding the proximal colon.

CONCLUSIONS

An evening-before regimen of SPMC is superior to an evening-before regimen of PEG in terms of subject's acceptability. The same-day SPMC regimen provides better cleansing levels in the proximal colon.

Impact of the quality of bowel cleansing on the efficacy of colonic cancer screening: a prospective, randomized, blinded study

OBJECTIVES

Efficacy of two low volume bowel cleansing preparations, polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG + Asc) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (NaPic/MgCit), were compared for polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR) and overall cleansing ability. Primary endpoint was PDR (the number of patients with ≥ 1 polypoid or flat lesion recorded by the colonoscopist).

METHODS

Diagnostic, surveillance or screening colonoscopy patients were enrolled into this investigator-blinded, multi-center Phase IV study and randomized 1:1 to receive PEG + Asc (administered the evening before and the morning of colonoscopy, per label) or NaPic/MgCit (administered in the morning and afternoon the day before colonoscopy, per label). The blinded colonoscopist documented any lesion and assessed cleansing quality (Harefield Cleansing Scale).

RESULTS

Of 394 patients who completed the study, 393 (PEG + Asc, N = 200; NaPic/MgCit, N = 193) had a colonoscopy. Overall PDR for PEG+Asc versus NaPic/MgCit was 51.5% versus 44.0%, p = 0.139. PDR and ADR on the right side of the bowel were significantly higher with PEG + Asc versus NaPic/MgCit (PDR: 56[28.0%] versus 32[16.6%], p = 0.007; ADR: 42[21.0%] versus 23[11.9%], p = 0.015), as was detection of flat lesions (43[21.5%] versus 25[13.0%], p = 0.025). Cleansing quality was better with PEG + Asc than NaPic/MgCit (98.5% versus 57.5% considered successful cleansing). Overall, there were 132 treatment-emergent adverse events (93 versus 39 for PEG+Asc and NaPic/MgCit, respectively). These were mainly mild abdominal symptoms, all of which were reported for higher proportions of patients in the PEG+Asc than NaPic/MgCit group. Twice as many patients in the NaPic/MgCit versus the PEG + Asc group reported tolerance of cleansing solution as 'very good'.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with NaPic/MgCit, PEG + Asc may be more efficacious for overall cleansing ability, and subsequent detection of right-sided and flat lesions. This is likely attributable to the different administration schedules of the two bowel cleansing preparations, which may positively impact the detection and prevention of colorectal cancer, thereby improving mortality rates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01689792.

[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.