Bowel preparation with split-dose polyethylene glycol before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Prospective, randomized study comparing two different regimens of split-dose polyethylene glycol and their effect on endoscopic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Different split regimens of polyethylene glycol are routinely used and no guidelines are available to select an optimal protocol of ingestion. This study aims to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of two different regimens of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation solution: PEG (3 + 1) vs. PEG (2 + 2).

METHODS

240 patients above the age of 18 years were included in the study between June 1st and November 31st, 2023. Patients were randomly assigned either to Group A, consisting of 115 patients receiving a 3 L of PEG the night before the colonoscopy, and 1 L the same morning of the procedure. Or to group B, where 125 patients ingested 2 L the night before the procedure, and the remaining 2 L the same morning. The cleansing efficacy was evaluated by the attending endoscopist using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, through a score assigned for each segment of the colon (0-3). Side effects, tolerability, and willingness to retake the same preparation were listed by an independent investigator using a questionnaire administered before the procedure.

RESULTS

A higher percentage of patients had gastric fullness with the 3 + 1 vs. 2 + 2 preparation (58.3% vs. 31.2%; p <.001). A higher Boston bowel preparation score was seen in patients who took the 2 + 2 vs. 3 + 1 preparation (7.87 vs. 7.23). Using the 2 + 2 preparation was significantly associated with higher Boston bowel preparation scores vs. the 3 + 1 preparation (OR = 1.37, p =.001, 95% CI 1.14, 1.64). After adjustment over other variables (age, gender, comorbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, presence of adenoma, and time between last dose and colonoscopy), results remained the same (aOR = 1.34, p =.003, 95% CI 1.10, 1.62).

CONCLUSION

While both (2 + 2) and (3 + 1) regimens of polyethylene glycol are a good choice for a successful colonoscopy, we recommend the use of (2 + 2) regimen for its superior efficacy in bowel cleansing.

Split doses versus whole dose bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A multicentric prospective Lebanese randomized trial between 2021 and 2023

Background and Aims

Bowel preparation is considered as major obstacle before colonoscopy, and it is often reported as the most feared part of the procedure. The aim of this study is to determine the difference in efficacy between a split dose of PEG and the previous day regimen in cleaning the colon, using Boston bowel preparation scale. In addition, also to evaluate patient satisfaction regarding the modality of preparation.

Methods

The study included 200 hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy at Beirut hospitals between 2021 and 2023. One of the two regimens will be prescribed randomly to the patients before colonoscopy: 98 (49%) in Group A (patients treated with PEG preparation as a split dose for 2 days), and 102 (51%) in Group B (patients taking PEG preparation as a whole dose). Data was analyzed using SPSS version 25.

Results

Patients were distributed between 105 (52.5%) males and 95 (47.5%) females. The top two indications for colonoscopy were bleeding (34%), change in bowel habits (constipation/diarrhea) (32%). Patients experienced adverse events noting cramps (48.5%), stomach ache (32%), headache (31%), vomiting (53%), nausea (53%), sleep disturbance (27%), bloating (26.5%), and malaise (26%). A statistically significant difference (p = 0.040) was detected in sleep disturbance: 20.4% of patients in group A and 33.3% of patients in group B. The average satisfaction score was 3.02 ± 1.03 over 4 (Group A) and 3.04 ± 0.99 over 4 (Group B) (p = 0.896). The average BBPS was 8.07 ± 1.14 (Group A) and 8.28 ± 1.0 (Group B) (p = 0.162).

Conclusion

The two administrations were almost similar in term of satisfaction and BBPS. As multiple factors like age, sexe, comorbidities may contribute in altering how much a given drug is safe and efficace, more research is needed to choose the best 3regimen for each patient.

Optimization of colonoscopy quality: Comprehensive review of the literature and future perspectives

Colonoscopy is crucial in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) and reducing associated mortality. This comprehensive review examines the importance of high-quality colonoscopy and associated quality indicators, including bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complete resection, specimen retrieval, complication rates, and patient satisfaction, while also discussing other ADR-related metrics. Additionally, the review draws attention to often overlooked quality aspects, such as nonpolypoid lesion detection, as well as insertion and withdrawal skills. Moreover, it explores the potential of artificial intelligence in enhancing colonoscopy quality and highlights specific considerations for organized screening programs. The review also emphasizes the implications of organized screening programs and the need for continuous quality improvement. A high-quality colonoscopy is crucial for preventing postcolonoscopy CRC- and CRC-related deaths. Health-care professionals must develop a thorough understanding of colonoscopy quality components, including technical quality, patient safety, and patient experience. By prioritizing ongoing evaluation and refinement of these quality indicators, health-care providers can contribute to improved patient outcomes and develop more effective CRC screening programs.

Prediction of advanced colorectal neoplasia based on metabolic parameters among symptomatic patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Worldwide, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and ranks second among the leading causes of cancer death. This study aims to devise and validate a scoring system based on metabolic parameters to predict the risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) in a large Chinese population.

METHODS

This was a cohort study of 495 584 symptomatic subjects aged 40 years or older who have received colonoscopy in Hong Kong from 1997 to 2017. The algorithm's discriminatory ability was evaluated as the area under the curve (AUC) of the mathematically constructed receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

Age, male gender, inpatient setting, abnormal aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase, white blood cell, plasma gamma-glutamyl transferase, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and hemoglobin A1c were significantly associated with ACN. A scoring of < 2.65 was designated as "low risk (LR)." Scores at 2.65 or above had prevalence higher than the overall prevalence and hence were assigned as "high risk (HR)." The prevalence of ACN was 32% and 11%, respectively, for HR and LR groups. The AUC for the risk score in the derivation and validation cohort was 70.12%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has validated a simple, accurate, and easy-to-use scoring algorithm, which has a high discriminatory capability to predict ACN in symptomatic patients. Future studies should examine its predictive performance in other population groups.

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).

Consequences of poly(ethylene oxide) and poloxamer P188 on transcription in healthy and stressed myoblasts

Poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) and poloxamers, a class of poly(ethylene oxide)-b-poly(propylene oxide)-b-poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO-PPO-PEO) triblock copolymers, have many personal and medical care applications, including the stabilization of stressed cellular membranes. Despite the widespread use, the cellular transcriptional response to these molecules is relatively unknown. C2C12 myoblasts, a model muscle cell, were subjected to short-term Poloxamer 188 (P188) and PEO181 (8,000 g/mol) treatment in culture. RNA was extracted and sequenced to quantify transcriptomic impact. The addition of moderate concentrations (14 µM) of either polymer to unstressed cells caused substantial differential gene expression, including at least twofold modulation of 357 and 588 genes, respectively. In addition, evaluation of the transcriptome response to osmotic stress without polymer treatment revealed dramatic change in RNA expression. Interestingly, the addition of polymer to stressed cells-at concentrations that provide physiological protection-did not yield a significant difference in expression of any gene relative to stress alone. Genome-scale expression analysis was corroborated by single-gene quantitative real-time PCR. Changes in protein expression were measured via western blot, which revealed partial alignment with the RNA results. Collectively, the significant changes to expression of multiple genes and resultant protein translation demonstrates an unexpectedly broad biochemical response to these polymers in healthy myoblasts in vitro. Meanwhile, the lack of substantial transcriptional response to polymer treatment in stressed cells highlights the physical nature of that protective mechanism.

Shape Memory Polymer-Based Nanocomposites Magnetically Enhanced with Fe3O4 Nanoparticles

This work aimed to investigate the effect of magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles (MNP), which are known to have a wide range of applications in recent years, on nanocomposite films prepared with shape memory polymers. Herein, PLA-PEG blend nanocomposite films were prepared by solution casting method using MNP at different ratios. PLA-PEG Blend/MNP nanocomposite films were characterized with Attenuated total reflection infrared spectroscopy (ATR-IR) to determine the -C=O stretching of PLA and Fe-O stretching signals of Fe3O4. The thermal stability, morphology, and magnetic behavior were studied by comparing the results among PLA-PEG blend, PLA-PEG blend/MNP nanocomposite with thermogravimetric analyses (TGA), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and a vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM), respectively. The effect of MNP on the shape memory properties of PLA/PEG blend was investigated. Moreover, the comparison of antimicrobial activity between PLA/PEG blend and PLA-PEG blend/MNP nanocomposite films were conducted by the disk diffusion method. The results showed that MNP increased the thermal stability of the PLA/PEG blend and the nanocomposites inhibited the growth of C.albicans microorganism.

Graphical Abstract

SPLIT-DOSE BOWEL PREPARATION IS SUPERIOR TO STRAIGHT-DOSE IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS UNDERGOING INPATIENT COLONOSCOPY

BACKGROUND

There is a two-fold higher rate of failed colonoscopy secondary to inadequate bowel preparation among hospitalized versus ambulatory patients. Split-dose bowel preparation is widely used in the outpatient setting but has not been generally adapted for use among the inpatient population.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of split versus single dose polyethylene glycol bowel (PEG) preparation for inpatient colonoscopies and determine additional procedural and patient characteristics that drive inpatient colonoscopy quality.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed on 189 patients who underwent inpatient colonoscopy and received 4 liters PEG as either split- or straight-dose during a 6-month period in 2017 at an academic medical center. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), Aronchick Score, and reported adequacy of preparation.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation was reported as adequate in 89% of the split-dose group versus 66% in the straight-dose group (P=0.0003). Inadequate bowel preparations were documented in 34.2% of the single-dose group and 10.7% of the split-dose group (P<0.001). Only 40% of patients received split-dose PEG. Mean BBPS was significantly lower in the straight-dose group (Total: 6.32 vs 7.73, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Split-dose bowel preparation is superior to straight-dose preparation across reportable quality metrics for non-screening colonoscopies and was readily performed in the inpatient setting. Interventions should be targeted at shifting the culture of gastroenterologist prescribing practices towards use of split-dose bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy.

Colonic bowel prep and body mass index: does one size fit all? A multi-centre review

PURPOSE

To investigate whether body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation in elective colonoscopy. The null hypothesis being BMI does not affect bowel preparation adequacy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all participants with complete medical records who had an elective colonoscopy was conducted across three tertiary teaching hospitals in Perth, Western Australia, from January 2016 to July 2019. Participants were separated into BMI subgroups of healthy weight, overweight and obese (≥ 30 kg/m²). Data were extracted from medical records, colonoscopy and histopathology reports and were analysed using SPSS v.27.

RESULTS

Of the 1082 cases analysed, 52.7% (n = 570) were male. The median age was 61 (range 18-85 years). The median BMI was 27.8 (range 20-52). The median procedure time is 28 (range 2-69 min). Routine follow-up was the clinical indication for 65% of colonoscopy procedures undertaken during the study period. Multivariate logistic regression, controlled for statistically insignificant confounders of age, type of bowel preparation agent, grade of the endoscopist, the indication for procedure and year of procedure, showed that being obese was significantly and independently associated with inadequate bowel preparation (OR 2.0, 95% CI (1.4-2.9) p < 0.001). Another significant factor was male (OR 1.6, 95% CI (1.2-2.1) p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that obese patients are more likely to have inadequate bowel preparation at colonoscopy. Given the increased complication rates and health care costs associated with repeating colonoscopies and the increased risk of colorectal cancer in obese patients, it may be worth tailoring a more extensive bowel preparation regimen to ensure adequate visualisation of the colonic mucosa on the first attempt.

Superiority of a preparation-related model for predicting inadequate bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Three models based on patient-related factors have been developed to predict inadequate bowel preparation (BP). However, the performance of the models seems suboptimal. This study aimed to develop a novel preparation-related model and compare it with the available patient-related models.

METHODS

Patients receiving standard BP were prospectively enrolled from five endoscopic centers. Patient-related and preparation-related factors for inadequate BP (defined by segmental Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score < 2) were identified by logistic regression. A preparation-related model was derived and internally validated in 906 patients. The comparisons of models were assessed by discrimination and calibration. The preparation-related model was also externally validated.

RESULTS

Several patient-related factors (male and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System score ≥ 3) and preparation-related factors (drinking-to-stool interval ≥ 3 h, preparation-to-colonoscopy interval ≥ 6 h, and poor rectal effluent) were found to be independently associated with inadequate BP (all P < 0.05). C-statistics was 0.81 for the preparation-related model in the training cohort (n = 604), significantly higher than three available patient-based models (0.58-0.61). Similar results were observed in the validation cohort (n = 302). Calibration curves showed close agreement in the preparation-related model (R²  = 0.315 in the training cohort and 0.279 in the validation cohort). The preparation-related model was externally validated in another 606 patients with C-index of 0.80.

CONCLUSIONS

A new preparation-related model (consisting of drinking-to-stool interval ≥ 3 h, preparation-to-colonoscopy interval ≥ 6 h, and poor last rectal effluent) was developed and performed better than three available patient-related models. This easy-to-use model may be a useful decision-support tool on individualized plans in patients undergoing BP.

Dedicated staff for patient education improves bowel preparation quality and reduces the cecal intubation time of colonoscopy: A single institution retrospective study

Adequate bowel preparation is an essential part of a high-quality colonoscopy. Recent studies showed that the small-volume bowel cleansing agent Bowklean performs better in terms of tolerability and acceptability. However, its split-dose regimen is sometimes confusing to the patient. To promote Bowklean in Fu Jen Catholic University Hospital, dedicated staff for patient education on bowel preparation were provided by Universal Integrated Corporation (Taiwan), but not in every period because of the clinic room availability and manpower capacity. This provided us an opportunity to compare the quality of colonoscopy between those with and without the dedicated patient education. This study aimed to compare various quality indices between the two groups. We set bowel preparation quality as the primary endpoint, assessed by modified Aronchick scale, and other quality indices including procedure time and adenoma detection rate as the secondary endpoints. We performed a single institution retrospective study. All patients who received colonoscopy from an outpatient setting with Bowklean as the bowel cleansing agent from October 2020 to November 2020 were reviewed. Primary and secondary endpoints were then compared between the conventional group and the dedicated staff group, with StataSE 14 by Wilcoxon rank sum test or logistic regression. Four hundred ten patients were recruited, including 217 patients with dedicated patient education and 193 without. The proportion of bowel preparation quality "Excellent + Good + Fair" was significantly higher in dedicated staff group than conventional group (97.7% vs 93.3%, P = .03; logistic regression coefficient = 1.12). The cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in the dedicated staff group (3.68 ± 2.02 minutes vs 4.52 ± 3.25 minutes, P < .01). After excluding those with polypectomy or biopsy, the total procedure time tended to be shorter in the dedicated staff group (10.2 ± 3.35 minutes vs 9.40 ± 2.43 minutes, P = .06). There was no significant difference regarding adenoma detection rate between the two groups. Our study shows that patient education by dedicated staff can improve bowel preparation quality and has the potential to decrease procedure time. Further large-scale prospective trials are still needed to evaluate if it can also achieve a better adenoma detection rate.

Regression and Random Forest Machine Learning Have Limited Performance in Predicting Bowel Preparation in Veteran Population

BACKGROUND

Inadequate bowel preparation undermines the quality of colonoscopy, but patients likely to be affected are difficult to identify beforehand.

AIMS

This study aimed to develop, validate, and compare prediction models for bowel preparation inadequacy using conventional logistic regression (LR) and random forest machine learning (RFML).

METHODS

We created a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy at a single VA medical center between January 2012 and October 2015. Candidate predictor variables were chosen after a literature review. We extracted all available predictor variables from the electronic medical record, and bowel preparation from the endoscopy database. The data were split into 70% training and 30% validation sets. Multivariable LR and RFML were used to predict preparation inadequacy as a dichotomous outcome.

RESULTS

The cohort included 6,885 Veterans, of whom 964 (14%) had inadequate preparation. Using LR, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the validation cohort was 0.66 (95% CI 0.62, 0.69) and the Brier score, in which a lower score indicates better performance, was 0.11. Using RFML, the AUC for the validation cohort was 0.61 (95% CI 0.58, 0.65) and the Brier score was 0.12.

CONCLUSIONS

LR and RFML had similar performance in predicting bowel preparation, which was modest and likely insufficient for use in practice. Future research is needed to identify additional predictor variables and to test other machine learning algorithms. At present, endoscopy units should focus on universal strategies to enhance preparation adequacy.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality

Continuous measurement of quality indicators (QIs) should be a routine part of colonoscopy, as a wide variation still exists in the performance and quality levels of colonoscopy in Korea. Among the many QIs of colonoscopy, the adenoma detection rate, average withdrawal time, bowel preparation adequacy, and cecal intubation rate should be monitored in daily clinical practice to improve the quality of the procedure. The adenoma detection rate is the best indicator of the quality of colonoscopy; however, it has many limitations for universal use in daily practice. With the development of natural language processing, the adenoma detection rate is expected to become more effective and useful. It is important that colonoscopists do not strictly and mechanically maintain an average withdrawal time of 6 minutes but instead perform careful colonoscopy to maximally expose the colonic mucosa with a withdrawal time of at least 6 minutes. To achieve adequate bowel preparation, documentation of bowel preparation with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) should be a routine part of colonoscopy. When colonoscopists routinely followed the bowel preparation protocols, ≥85% of outpatient screening colonoscopies had a BBPS score of ≥6. In addition, the cecal intubation rate should be ≥95% of all screening colonoscopies. The first step in improving colonoscopy quality in Korea is to apply these key performance measurements in clinical practice.

[Bowel preparation in patients with Diabetes mellitus: Development of a procedure model]

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy is the key factor for high quality preparation for colonoscopy. Inadequate preparation can result in prolonged procedure time, incomplete colonoscopy and an increased risk of procedural adverse events. Diabetes mellitus has been identified as a predictor of inadequate colonoscopy bowel preparation. Currently, standard recommendations for diabetes patients before colonoscopy are missing.

METHODS

This review is based on a selective literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar carried out in June 2021. Systematic reviews, guidelines, expert opinions, and recommendations from German and international societies were also considered.

RESULTS

The currently available preparations comprise two different groups: High-, medium- and low- volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) preparations and hyperosmotic agents. So far, a couple of reviews tried to identify outcome related differencies. Results are heterogeneous. In practise, preparation agents and timing of preparation as well as a thorough patient information before the preparation process are considered the most relevant items. In diabetes patients, preinterventional dietary recommendations are of paramount importance.

CONCLUSION

Split dosing of PEG preparations are recommended in diabetes patients with expected motility disorders. Extensive counseling about preparation intake and dietary recommendations should be offered.

Improving Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation and Reducing Patient Anxiety Through Recently Developed Online Information Resource: A Cross-sectional Study

Introduction

Invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies can cause psychological distress and anxiety. Mycolonoscopy.ca is a multilanguage website that provides online written and video information (individual items reported in prior publications to be highly rated by patients) regarding preparation and what to expect before, during, and after colonoscopy. Information about how to access the website is included with all colonoscopy appointment materials in Winnipeg, Manitoba. We evaluated the use of mycolonoscopy.ca among patients undergoing colonoscopy and examined the association between visitation to the website and patient outcomes.

Methods

A paper-based survey was distributed to patients attending their colonoscopy appointments between 11/2019 and 3/2020. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the factors associated with website visitation, procedural worry, and bowel preparation scores.

Results

Five hundred and ninety-three surveys were distributed, of which 506 were completed. 17.4% of participants had visited the website before their colonoscopy. Visitors to mycolonoscopy.ca were more likely to consume a split-dose bowel preparation (63.9%) compared with non-visitors (52.5%) (P = 0.006). 31.3% of website visitors were very/extremely worried about their colonoscopy compared with 17.9% of non-visitors. 76.6% of individuals agreed/strongly agreed that visiting the website helped them prepare for their colonoscopy and 69.7% who visited the website agreed/strongly agreed that it helped to reduce their stress/anxiety for the procedure. In multivariable analyses, visitation to website was associated with higher adequate bowel preparation (OR:10.55; 95% CI:1.35 to 82.4).

Conclusion

Use of an informative online platform such as mycolonoscopy.ca can help to improve patient education before colonoscopy, reduce worry surrounding the procedure, and improve bowel preparation.

A colonoscopy quality improvement intervention in an endoscopy unit

Many studies identified colonoscopy quality indicators in order to improve performance and safety. We conducted a colonoscopy improvement study. Our study was designed according to a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle: first recording of our quality indicators and identification of shortcomings, second identification of improvement targets and implementation of new procedures, third second recording of quality indicators, fourth validation of procedures and identification of new goals. Quality indicators derived from European and French guidelines were recorded before and after our improvement actions. We were mainly interested in the quality indicators of the colonic preparation, the description of the diagnosed lesions and on the examination reports. The data of 134 patients prospectively included in January-February 2017 were compared to 133 patients included in May-June 2019, after implementation of improvement procedures, in the digestive endoscopy unit of the university hospital of Dijon, France. Our intervention, and in particular the implementation of new standardized forms, improved preparation quality: Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores increased significantly from 7.8 to 8.2. Cecal intubation rate increased by 6%, and more adenomas were diagnosed and removed (+3.3%). Adenoma detection rate increased significantly from 26 to 42%. The completion of withdrawal time measure improved from 6.7 to 100%. Our study led to the rapid implementation of corrective actions and improved quality in our unit and in our personal practice. This quality improvement strategy could be easily implemented in every digestive endoscopy unit.

Improvements in the Effectiveness of Early Detection in Colorectal Cancer with Open-Label Randomised Study

Introduction: The general objective of this research is to improve the quality of colorectal cancer screening (CRC) by assessing, as an indicator of effectiveness, the ability of colonoscopy to detect more advanced adenomas in the exposed group than in the control group. Material and Methods: The present work is designed as an open-label randomized study on cancer screening, using two groups based on their exposure to the protocol: an exposed to intervention group (EIG, 167), and a control group (CG, 167), without the intervention of the protocol and by 1:1 matching. Results: In 167 patients in the GEI, 449 polyps are visualized and 274 are adenomas (80.58%), of which 100 (36.49%) are advanced adenomas. In the CG (n = 174), there are 321 polyps and 152 adenomas (82.60%). The variables significantly associated by logistic regression to the detection of adenomas are the male sex with an OR of 2.52. The variable time to withdrawal, ≥9 min, is significant at 99% confidence (p = 0.002/OR 34.67) and the fractional dose is significant at 99% (p = 0.009, OR 7.81). Conclusion: Based on the observations made, our study suggests that the intervention in collaboration between primary care and hospital care is effective from a preventive point of view and achieves the objective of effectiveness and quality of the PCCR.

The unmet needs for identifying the ideal bowel preparation

Colonoscopy, since it was first employed over 60 years ago, is now the gold standard method for visualizing the mucosa of the colon, but should be of good quality. Many factors affect quality, including the type of health service organization, type of facility, staff, equipment, patient characteristics, and bowel preparation (BP). The adequacy of bowel cleansing is critical, but, unfortunately, may be inadequate in up to one‐third of procedures. The current article will present and discuss the main BPs and their drawbacks, which include patient‐dependent and procedure‐dependent factors. Cleansing quality depends on the ease/complexity of solution preparation, volume, taste, and timing of consumption. Consequently, important positive factors include simple instructions, easy preparation of the solution, low volume, pleasant taste, short drinking time (e.g. <30 min), and splitting the dose between the evening before and the morning of the colonoscopy (or even better, only one dose in the early morning to avoid night‐time problems), and short onset of action. The BP solution must also be safe with negligible side effects. Furthermore, a positive experience supports patient willingness to repeat the procedure.

Volume of fluid consumption during preparation for colonoscopy is possibly the single most important determinant of bowel preparation adequacy

Background

The effectiveness and safety of colonoscopy are directly dependent on the quality of bowel preparation. Multiple risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) have been identified; however, IBP is still reported in 20-30% of cases in most studies. We aimed to identify modifiable predictors of the adequacy of bowel preparation using sodium picosulfate, and to recommend easily modifiable parameters to increase the success rate of colonoscopies.

Methods

This was a single-center observational study of adult outpatients referred for an elective colonoscopy. Patients were interviewed prior to colonoscopy; volume of liquids consumed was calculated as number of 200-mL cups showed to the patient. Additional information, including medical history, diagnoses and regular medications, was procured from patients’ medical records. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify factors significantly associated with IBP in a subgroup analysis of high-risk patients.

Results

The rate of IBP in 1172 subjects was 19.4%. This rate decreased as fluid consumption increased, with a further drop associated with shorter intervals from end of preparation to colonoscopy. Drinking < 1.4 L significantly increased the risk of IBP (odds ratio [OR] 3.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.65-4.95), while drinking ≥2 L was associated with adequate preparation (OR 0.09, 95%CI 0-0.42). These associations were stronger in high-risk individuals.

Conclusion

Greater fluid intake and short interval to colonoscopy are easily modifiable parameters that can substantially reduce the rate of IBP, especially among high-risk individuals.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Strategies to Improve Quality of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Expert Review

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update was to review the available evidence and provide best practice advice regarding strategies to improve the quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy. This review is framed around 15 best practice advice statements regarding colonoscopy quality that were agreed upon by the authors, based on a review of the available evidence and published guidelines. This is not a formal systematic review and thus no formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation has been carried out.

A Phase 2 Randomized Trial of DCL-101, a Novel Pill-Based Colonoscopy Prep, vs 4L Polyethylene Glycol-Electrolyte Solution

INTRODUCTION:

DCL-101, a novel Pill Prep, is compositionally identical to standard 4L polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) and delivers the salt encapsulated, with PEG 3350 coadministered as a taste-free oral solution. The aim of this study was to compare the safety, taste, and tolerability of DCL-101 with 4L PEG-ELS in outpatients preparing for colonoscopy, with a secondary objective to assess efficacy.

METHODS:

This was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded, phase 2 clinical trial of 45 adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Patients were randomized 2:1 to either DCL-101 (3L in cohort 1; 4L in cohort 2) or 4L PEG-ELS, each administered with split dosing. Safety was assessed over 3 post-treatment clinic visits. Tolerability was measured using the Lawrance Bowel-Preparation Tolerability Questionnaire and the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Efficacy was determined by expert central readers, blinded to treatment, using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and Aronchick scale.

RESULTS:

Both DCL-101 doses had superior taste and tolerability relative to 4L PEG-ELS. All adverse events were grade 1 with no significant differences in adverse events among the 3 regimens. There were no significant differences in efficacy among the 3 treatments as defined by the centrally read Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, or Aronchick scores. There were no inadequate preps as judged by the site endoscopist.

DISCUSSION:

DCL-101 Pill Prep is a novel strategy that vastly improves the taste and tolerability of PEG-ELS solutions with safety and efficacy comparable with split-dose 4L PEG-ELS solutions.

Safety and efficacy of sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid bowel preparation in patients with baseline renal impairment or diabetes: subanalysis of a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Selecting a bowel preparation for patients with renal impairment or diabetes requires special consideration. We aimed to describe the effect of baseline renal impairment or diabetes on the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of low-volume sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (SPMC) ready-to-drink oral solution bowel preparation.

METHODS

A post hoc secondary analysis was performed from a randomized, assessor-blinded study of SPMC oral solution bowel preparation in participants with mild or moderate baseline renal impairment or diabetes. Primary efficacy endpoint ('responders') was the proportion of participants with 'excellent' or 'good' ratings on a modified Aronchick Scale (AS). Secondary efficacy outcomes were the quality of ascending colon cleansing from the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and selected results from the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), adenoma detection, and laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

Similar overall colon cleansing was demonstrated in the subgroups, with >85% of participants in any subgroup rated as responders by the AS, and >92% of participant responders by the BBPS. Most participants reported a tolerable bowel preparation, regardless of baseline renal impairment or diabetes history. Safety of SPMC oral solution was similar between all subgroups and the overall cohort. For the mild renal impairment, moderate renal impairment, and diabetes subgroups, respectively, commonly reported, drug-related AEs were nausea (2.6%, 5.3%, 1.4%) and headache (2.2%, 2.6%, 4.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ready-to-drink SPMC oral solution demonstrated efficacious colon cleansing in patients with baseline mild/moderate renal impairment or diabetes, with a tolerable bowel preparation reported by most.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03017235.

Increased Driving Distance to Screening Colonoscopy Negatively Affects Bowel Preparation Quality: an Observational Study

BACKGROUND

To prepare for colonoscopy, patients must consume a bowel purgative and travel from their home to the site of their procedure. The timing of bowel purgative ingestion predicts bowel preparation quality. Currently, it is not known if driving distance impacts bowel preparation quality or adenoma detection.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the effect of driving distance on bowel preparation and adenoma detection.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of outpatient screening colonoscopy procedures that were completed at an academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 5089 patients who completed screening colonoscopy across 3 procedure units were analyzed.

MAIN MEASURES

Description of bowel preparation was dichotomized to either adequate or inadequate. Patient residential addresses were converted into geographic coordinates for geospatial analysis of driving distance to their colonoscopy site.

KEY RESULTS

Median driving distance was 13.1 miles. Eighty-nine percent of patients had an adequate bowel preparation. The rate of adenoma detection was 37%. On multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, race, insurance, endoscopist, and site, increasing driving distance (10-mile increments) was negatively associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.97), while adenoma detection was positively associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 1.53; 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.88) but not with driving distance (odds ratio = 1.02; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.06). Driving distances of 30 miles or less were associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 1.37; 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing driving distance to screening colonoscopy was negatively associated with adequate bowel preparation but not adenoma detection. Among an academic medical center population, the likelihood of adequate bowel preparation was highest in patients traveling 30 miles or less to their screening colonoscopy. Patient driving distance to colonoscopy is an important consideration in optimizing screening colonoscopy quality.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Very-low Volume Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Narrative Review

An adequate bowel preparation is essential for a successful colonoscopy, in particular, in the setting of colorectal cancer screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, prolonged procedural time, and an increased likelihood of repeat the procedure. The ideal intestinal preparation should provide an optimal observation of the mucosa (at least &gt; 90% of the visible surface), with adequate acceptability and safety for the patient. With this premise, a very low-volume 1 L PEG-ASC solution (Plenvu; Norgine, Harefield, United Kingdom) has been recently introduced to improve patients' experience in colonoscopy by reducing the total intake of liquids to be consumed. This could represent a valid option for bowel cleansing, considering CRC screening and surveillance programs, improving both the quality of the examination and the patients' compliance. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that a "one size fits all" preparation strategy is not feasible and that a bowel preparation regime must always be selected and tailored by the clinician for each patient, evaluating the best options on a case by case basis. This narrative review aims to sum up the evidence regarding new bowel preparation regimens in order to help clinicians to tailor the best choice for patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Impact of Moderate versus Deep Sedation and Trainee Participation on Adenoma Detection Rate-Analysis of a Veteran Population

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is used as a quality indicator for screening and surveillance colonoscopy. The study aimed to determine if moderate versus deep sedation affects the outcomes of the ADR and other quality metrics in the veteran population.

METHODS

A retrospective review of colonoscopies performed at Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center over a one-year period was conducted. A total of 900 colonoscopy reports were reviewed. After exclusion criteria, a total of 229 index, average-risk screening colonoscopies were identified. Data were collected to determine the impact of moderate (benzodiazepine plus opioids) versus deep (propofol) sedation on the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and withdrawal time.

RESULTS

Among 229 screening colonoscopies, 103 (44.9%) used moderate sedation while 126 (55%) were done under deep sedation. The ADR and PDR were not significantly different between moderate versus deep sedation at 35.9% vs. 37.3% (p=0.82) and 58.2% vs. 48.4% (p=0.13), respectively. Similarly, there was no significant difference in withdrawal time between moderate and deep sedation (13.4 min vs. 14 min, p=0.56) during screening colonoscopies.

CONCLUSION

In veterans undergoing index, average-risk screening colonoscopies, the quality metrics of the ADR, PDR, and withdrawal time are not influenced by deep sedation compared with moderate sedation.

Efficacy and Patient Tolerability of Split-Dose Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Oral Solution Compared to the Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Solution for Bowel Preparation in Outpatient Colonoscopy: An Evidence-Based Review

Background

Colonoscopy is the gold standard exam for evaluation of colonic abnormalities and for screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy of colonoscopy is dependent on the quality of the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) have emerged as two of the most commonly used bowel preparation agents. We conducted an evidence-based review of current evidence to further investigate the efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose SPMC oral solution compared to PEG solution for colonoscopy bowel preparation.

Methods

A systematic search was performed using Pubmed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. All studies on split-dose bowel preparation with SPMC and PEG were reviewed. Relevant studies regarding colonoscopy and bowel preparations were also included. Randomized controlled trials were prioritized due to the high quality of evidence.

Results

Eight randomized controlled trials were included. Split-dose SPMC and PEG were associated with similar results for adequacy of bowel preparation. Split-dose SPMC was associated with increased patient tolerability and compliance.

Conclusion

Split-dose SPMC and PEG are both adequate and safe for bowel preparation for outpatient colonoscopy, with split-dose SPMC being more tolerable for patients. Additional RCTs comparing these and other bowel preparation solutions are necessary to further investigate quality of bowel preparation, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of the various options.

An Evidence-based Approach Towards Targeted Patient Education to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

GOALS AND BACKGROUND

Quality of bowel preparation is an important factor influencing adenoma detection. Patient education is believed to improve the quality of bowel preparation but might be resource-intensive. We aimed to (a) identify risk factors for failed bowel preparations and (b) develop and test the efficacy of a screening tool that allows to prospectively identify and target patients at increased risk.

STUDY

Part 1: 76 consecutive outpatients with poor bowel preparation were compared with 76 age-matched and gender-matched outpatients with good preparation from the same procedure lists. Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained from centralized databases. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for poor bowel preparation. Part 2: on the basis of results of part 1, a screening tool for prospectively identifying patients at high risk was developed, and targeted education tested.

RESULTS

We identified the use of opioids or other constipating agents and low socioeconomic status as risk factors for poor bowel preparation [odds ratio (OR)=2.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22-6.80 and OR=2.43; 95% CI: 1.25-4.72]. Diabetes, hypothyroidism, age, and gender were found to have no effect on quality. When education was provided only to patients at increased risk, the targeted approach did not negatively affect the proportion of poor preparation (OR=6.12%; 95% CI: 4.79%-7.78% vs. OR=5.73%; 95% CI: 4.61%-7.10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor bowel preparation is associated with specific risk factors. Identifying and specifically targeting education at patients with these risk factors appears to facilitate more efficient use of education resources in endoscopy.

Multidirectional Colonoscopy Quality Improvement Increases Adenoma Detection Rate: Results of the Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center Colonoscopy Quality Upgrade Project (Gangnam-CUP)

BACKGROUND

To prevent colorectal cancer, high-quality colonoscopy is advocated, undertaken by endoscopists with high adenoma detection rates (ADRs). Despite reports that various factors may impact ADRs, the significance of such factors is still unclear.

AIMS

The analysis was aimed at quality-oriented interventions for boosting ADRs.

METHODS

Study enrollees were adults subjected to screening colonoscopy between September 2013 and August 2016 at the Gangnam Center of Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System. The investigation entailed six periods (P1-6) of 6 months each, during which serial multidirectional quality improvement efforts were instituted. In particular, we sought to further educate endoscopists, provide feedback on individual ADRs, and introduce a split-dose regimen, gauging results via the Boston Bowel Preparation Score. Changes in polyp detection rates (PDRs) and ADRs were then analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 13,430 colonoscopies were undertaken by 15 experienced endoscopists. Overall, the ADR increased from 45.6% (P1) to 48.2% (P6, p < 0.001). The PDR, ADR, and advanced adenoma detection rate (AdvADR) showed the greatest increases between P3 and P4 [PDR 67.8% → 71.2% (p < 0.001); ADR 44.1% → 47.7% (p = 0.001); AdvADR 2.3% → 3.3% (p = 0.028)] in keeping with the introduction of a split-dose regimen. The sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (SSADR) increased substantially from 2.1% (P1) to 7.9% (P6, p < 0.001), with the largest gain between P1 and P2, just after education (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Successful quality improvement in colonoscopy was achieved through comprehensive multidirectional efforts in education, feedback, and enhanced bowel preparation. Achieving high-level bowel preparation was paramount in ADR improvement. The SSADR was improved through education.

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.

Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in 2020: A Look at the Past, Present, and Future

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the USA. Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening and can offer both diagnosis and therapy. The bowel preparation remains a significant barrier for patients who need to undergo colonoscopy and is often cited as the most dreaded aspect of the colonoscopy process. Inadequate bowel preparations still occur in 10-25% of colonoscopies, and this in turn can lead to increased procedural times, lower cecal intubation rates, and shorter interval between colonoscopies. From a quality standpoint, it is imperative that we do what we can to decrease the rate of inadequate bowel preparations. This review will focus on recent data regarding bowel preparation and offers a glimpse into what may be coming in the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent advances in the field have been made to improve tolerability of bowel preparations and allow for more adequate colonoscopies. Newer, lower volume, flavored preparations, the use of adjuncts, and using split-dose preparations all can help with tolerability, compliance, and, in turn, preparation quality. Edible bowel preparations may become available in the near future. Early data on the use of artificial intelligence for assessment of preparation quality has been promising. Additionally, utilization of smartphone technology for education prior to the bowel preparation has also been shown to improve the adequacy of bowel preparations.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing efforts to improve the tolerability and palatability of colonoscopy bowel preparations are important from a quality improvement standpoint to ensure the adequacy of colonoscopy. Incorporating patient-specific factors and comorbidities is also an essential aspect of improving the quality of bowel preparation. Leveraging technology to better communicate with and educate patients on the bowel preparation process is likely to play a larger role in the coming years.

The importance of colonoscopy bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal lesions and colorectal cancer prevention

Background and study aims  Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has reduced CRC incidence and mortality and improved prognosis. Optimal bowel preparation and high-quality endoscopic technique facilitate early CRC detection. This review provides a narrative on the clinical importance of bowel preparation for colonoscopy and highlights available bowel preparations. Methods  A PubMed search was conducted through June 2019 to identify studies evaluating clinical outcomes, efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with bowel preparation for CRC screening-related colonoscopy. Results  Selecting the optimal bowel preparation regimen is based on considerations of efficacy, safety, and tolerability, in conjunction with individual patient characteristics and preferences. Available bowel preparations include high-volume (4 L) and low-volume (2 L and 1 L), polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions, sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate/magnesium oxide plus anhydrous citric acid, sodium phosphate tablets, and the over-the-counter preparations magnesium citrate and PEG-3350. These preparations may be administered as a single dose on the same day or evening before, or as two doses administered the same day or evening before/morning of colonoscopy. Ingesting at least half the bowel preparation on the day of colonoscopy (split-dosing) is associated with higher adequate bowel preparation quality versus evening-before dosing (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.9-3.4). Conclusions  High-quality bowel preparation is integral for optimal CRC screening/surveillance by colonoscopy. Over the last 30 years, patients and providers have gained more options for bowel preparation, including low-volume agents with enhanced tolerability and cleansing quality that are equivalent to 4 L preparations. Split-dosing is preferred for achieving a high-quality preparation.

Comparison of Oral Sulfate Solution and Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid on the Efficacy of Bowel Preparation

Background/Aims

The quality of bowel preparation is one of the quality indicators for colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of oral sulfate solution (OSS) and polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-AA) for bowel preparation.

Methods

The study involved 167 patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopies. Inadequate bowel preparation was defined as any score of ≤1 in each colon section based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the efficacy of OSS and PEG-AA. Subgroup analyses were performed based on patient characteristics.

Results

Overall, 106 (63.5%) patients received OSS, and 61 (36.5%) patients received PEG-AA. The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 12.3% in patients receiving OSS and 32.8% in patients receiving PEG-AA (p=0.001). OSS (odds ratio [OR] = 0.26; p=0.003) and morning examination (OR=0.11; p=0.038) were significantly associated with efficient bowel preparation. The efficacy of OSS compared with PEG-AA was only significant in patients ≥50 years of age vs. <50 years of age (OR=0.13; p=0.001 vs. OR=0.96; p=0.959) and female vs. male patients (OR=0.06; p=0.002 vs. OR=0.58; p=0.339).

Conclusions

OSS was significantly more efficient for bowel preparation than PEG-AA, especially in patients ≥50 years of age and female patients. Morning examination led to a good quality of bowel preparation, irrespective of the preparation regimen.

A Randomized Trial Comparing the Bowel Cleansing Efficacy of Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate and Polyethylene Glycol/Bisacodyl (The Bowklean Study)

Bowel cleansing is essential for a successful colonoscopy, but the ideal clearing agent and the volume have yet to be determined. A small-volume cleanser is important for patient compliance. This study aimed to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability of a 300-mL small-volume sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (PSMC) preparation-Bowklean with one 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)/bisacodyl-Klean-Prep/Dulcolax preparation under identical dietary recommendations. This multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, pre-specified noninferiority study enrolled 631 outpatients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy (Bowklean = 316 and Klean-Prep/Dulcolax = 315). After bowel preparation, an independent evaluator blinded to the subject's treatment allocation rated the quality of the colon cleansing. Efficacy was evaluated using the Aronchick Scale and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OPBS). Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events. Tolerability and acceptability were measured via a patient questionnaire. Bowklean was non-interior to Klean-Prep/Dulcolax in overall colon cleansing but was associated with significantly better preparation quality. Notably, Bowklean was associated with significantly greater tolerability and acceptability of bowel preparations than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax. Safety profiles did not differ significantly between the groups. Our data indicate that Bowklean is a more effective and better-tolerated bowel cleansing preparation before colonoscopy than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax. Bowklean may therefore increase positive attitudes toward colonoscopies and participation rates.

A European, multicentre, observational, post-authorisation safety study of oral sulphate solution: compliance and safety

Background and study aims  Oral sulphate solution (OSS) is a sulphate-based, low-volume bowel cleansing preparation taken in two doses of 500 mL, each followed by 1000mL of water or clear liquid. The primary objective of this observational study was to document compliance with the recommended hydration guidelines in a representative sample of the European population. Patients and methods  Prospective, non-interventional, multicentre study (NCT02630680, EUPAS9361) in patients prescribed OSS for colonoscopy preparation in routine clinical practice in Europe. Patients were included according to pre-agreed consecutive enrolment rules. Patients recorded the volume of OSS and water or clear liquid intake, and occurrence of adverse events (AEs). Compliance with hydration was calculated as a ratio of actual volume of water/clear liquid taken versus prescribed 2,000 mL, and non-compliance defined as < 75 % intake. Colon cleansing level was assessed on a 4-point scale. Results  Between October 2015 and January 2017, 1,281 patients were recruited in 16 centres in four European countries (safety population n = 1,206; registry population n = 1,177). Of patients, 94.5 % were ≥ 75 % and 86.8 % 100 % compliant with hydration guidelines. Patients took an average of 96.8 % of the recommended OSS volume; 46 patients (3.9 %) were non-compliant. Colon cleansing levels were good-to-excellent in 87.6 % of patients. Three hundred and twenty-nine patients (27.3 %) experienced 758 treatment-related AEs, mostly gastrointestinal (82.9 %), all were mild-to-moderate. Non-compliant patients had no AEs suggestive of dehydration. Conclusion  In this non-interventional study in a real-life setting, treatment compliance with hydration guidelines was good-to-excellent in 94.5 % of patients receiving OSS. The safety profile of OSS was similar to the prescribing information.

Split dose versus full single-dose regimen of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in pediatric colonoscopy: a pilot study of randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Previous meta-analyses in adults comparing a full single dose vs. split doses of polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution demonstrated that the split-dose group had a higher rate of successful bowel preparation. To date, no similar study in children has been conducted. Therefore, we compared the efficacy of bowel preparation between the two regimens of polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution in pediatric colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were tolerability, acceptability, and compliance.

METHODS

An investigator-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted to enroll children aged 2-18 years who underwent an elective colonoscopy at a teaching hospital between March 2018 and February 2019. Patients were randomly assigned to receive polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution as a full single dose or two split doses. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used for the efficacy (i.e. successful bowel preparation if score ≥ 6). Secondary outcomes were evaluated by using a standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 45 colonoscopies (22 in the full single-dose and 23 in the split-dose group) were performed. Mean age was 9.2 years old (SD 4.4). We noted a higher rate of successful bowel preparation in the split-dose group (95% vs. 72%, P = 0.047). Significant higher rate of willingness to repeat the same protocol (83% vs. 36%, P = 0.002) and a trend of lower rate of nausea/vomiting (39% vs. 68%, P = 0.051) in the split-dose group were found.

CONCLUSION

The split-dose regimen of polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution for bowel preparation suggests superior efficacy, potential tolerability, and acceptability as compared to the traditional full single-dose regimen.

Impact of moderate versus deep sedation on adenoma detection rate in index average-risk screening colonoscopies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The debate between moderate sedation versus deep sedation for index average-risk screening colonoscopies is well known to gastroenterologists. Ensuring the best of all metrics to perform quality colonoscopies for colon cancer prevention is paramount for both patients and physicians alike, because colon cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death and is the most-used screening tool in the United States. The aim of this study was to determine if moderate sedation versus deep sedation affects outcomes of adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate (PDR) in index, average-risk colonoscopies for colon cancer screening.

METHODS

A retrospective, single, tertiary care outpatient center study of 585 healthy average-risk patients who underwent index screening colonoscopy between June 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (moderate sedation only) and June 1, 2016,to December 31, 2016 (deep sedation only) was performed after Institutional Review Board approval. Demographic data and polyp details were collected to determine ADR and PDR. Patients who were not average risk were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

A total of 585 index average-risk screening colonoscopies were included in this study with 57.7% moderate sedation and 42.2% deep sedation. Neither ADR nor PDR was significantly different between the 2 groups (44.1% vs 38.5% [P = .18] and 71.9% vs 67.6% [P = .27], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In index average-risk screening colonoscopies, deep sedation appears to have no benefit compared with moderate sedation for ADR and PDR.

Simethicone decreases bloating and improves bowel preparation effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Simethicone is an adjunct frequently used during bowel preparation before colonoscopy and currently there is no consensus on whether it should be recommended in standard bowel preparation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect simethicone has on bowel cleanliness, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and tolerability.

METHODS

We searched the literature for studies that compared colon cleansing of patients that received standard bowel preparation alone and in combination with simethicone prior to colonoscopy. The primary outcomes were colon cleanliness, ADR, and tolerability.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized controlled trials with 5630 patients were included in meta-analysis. Overall, polyethylene glycol (PEG) with simethicone improves colon cleansing compared with PEG alone (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, CI 1.11 to 1.97, P = 0.008). This improvement was seen for single dosing (OR 1.83, CI 1.20 to 2.79, P = 0.005) but not for split dosing (OR 1.32, CI 0.72 to 2.43, P = 0.38). Overall, simethicone had no effect on ADR (OR 1.22, CI 0.81 to 1.83, P = 0.33), but in patients receiving single dosing, simethicone significantly increased ADR (OR 1.96, CI 1.22 to 3.16, P = 0.005). The rates of nausea (OR 0.96, CI 0.75 to 1.24, P = 0.75), vomiting (OR 1.00, CI 0.69 to 1.44, P = 0.99), and abdominal pain (OR 0.69, CI 0.40 to 1.18, P = 0.17) were not significantly different between PEG and PEG + simethicone cohorts. For abdominal bloating, the PEG cohort had greater odds of experiencing bloating than the PEG + simethicone cohort (OR 2.33, CI 1.70 to 3.20, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Simethicone improves colon cleanliness and ADR; however, this improvement is not seen in patients receiving split-dose PEG. Furthermore, simethicone decreases abdominal bloating but has no effect on nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Simethicone may be a useful bowel preparation adjunct in patients unable to receive split-dose PEG.

Predictors and colonoscopy outcomes of inadequate bowel cleansing: a 10-year experience in 28,725 patients

Background:

Inadequate bowel preparation is still the main obstacle to a complete colonoscopy in many patients and necessitates many repeated procedures. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation and to better characterize these patients.

Methods:

This was a retrospective study that reviewed electronic reports of colonoscopy procedures over a 10-year period. Patients were divided into 2 groups: adequate vs. non-adequate bowel preparation. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with inadequate bowel preparation, including age, sex, setting (inpatient/outpatient), preparation regimen and procedures’ indications. We examined the effect of inadequate preparation on colonoscopy quality indicators.

Results:

Of the 28,725 patients included in the study, 6,702 (23.3%) had inadequate bowel preparation. In the multivariate analysis, advanced age (odds ratio [OR] 1.015, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.013-1.017; P<0.01), male sex (OR 1.353, 95%CI 1.286-1.423; P<0.01) and a minority population (OR 1.635, 95%CI 1.531-1.746; P<0.01) were significantly associated with inadequate bowel preparation. The inpatient setting was among the most prominent factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation (OR 2.018, 95%CI 1.884-2.163; P<0.01). Adequate bowel preparation was associated with a higher polyp detection rate (26.8% vs. 23.6%; OR 1.22, 95%CI 1.109-1.347; P<0.01) and colorectal cancer (2.8% vs. 2.4%; OR 1.402, 95%CI 1.146-1.716; P<0.01), and higher frequencies of cecal (96.4% vs. 73.5%; OR 2.243, 95%CI 2.095-2.403; P<0.01) and terminal ileum intubation (8.1% vs. 5.4%; OR 1.243, 95%CI 1.088-1.434; P<0.01).

Conclusion:

We outlined various factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation and confirmed its adverse effect on colonoscopy quality indicators.

The Efficacy of Split-Dose Bowel Preparations for Polyp Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Split-dose bowel preparation leads to superior colon cleansing for colonoscopy. However, the magnitude of benefit in detecting colonic polyps is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to synthesize the data on whether using a split-dose bowel preparation regimen improves the detection of polyps when compared with other dosing methods or regimen products.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases (from the inception to June 2017) for randomized controlled trials that assessed the following: split-dose vs day-before, split-dose vs same-day (as colonoscopy), or different types of split-dose regimens for patients undergoing colonoscopy. We excluded studies limited to inpatients, children, or individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. We compared the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy with recorded detection of polyps, adenomas, advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), right colonic adenomas, right colonic polyps, or right colonic SSPs.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (8,842 participants). Of the seven trials comparing split-dose vs day-before bowel preparation regimens, there was an increased detection rate of adenomas (risk ratio (RR) 1.26, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 1.10-1.44; 4 trials; 1,258 participants), advanced adenomas (RR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.22-1.92; 3 trials; 1,155 participants), and SSPs (RR 2.48, 95% CI: 1.21-5.09; 2 trials; 1,045 participants). Pooled estimates from 8 trials (1,587 participants) evaluating split-dose vs same-day bowel preparations yielded no evidence of statistical difference. For various split-dose vs split-dose trials, 14 fulfilled the criteria (5,496 participants) and no superior split-regimen was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with day-before bowel preparation regimens, split-dose bowel preparations regimens increase the detection of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and have the greatest benefit in SSP detection.

Comparison of asymmetric (low morning-dose) and standard split-dose regimen of PEG plus bisacodyl for bowel preparation: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Reducing the morning dose of PEG solution may be a reliable strategy to improve the patient compliance of split-dose regimens without affecting efficacy of bowel cleansing.

AIMS

to compare the efficacy for bowel cleansing of an asymmetric split-dose regimen (25% of the dose on the day of colonoscopy and 75% on the day before) with the standard split-dose regimen.

METHODS

Outpatients were enrolled in a randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial. All subjects received a split-dose preparation with a 2L PEG-citrate-simethicone plus Bisacodyl. Patients were randomly assigned to: group A, asymmetric split-dose regimen; group B, symmetric split-dose regimen. Primary endpoint was the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing.

RESULTS

Split-dose was taken by 81 and 80 patients in group A and B. Adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 92.6% and 92.5% patients in group A and B (p = 1.000). No differences were observed regarding Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score, adenoma detection rate and scores of each colon segment.

CONCLUSIONS

The reduction of morning dose of PEG in a split-dose regimen is not inferior to the standard split-dose regimen in achieving an adequate bowel cleansing. However, further studies are needed to evaluate whether asymmetric preparation is associated to a higher tolerability compared to symmetric split-dose regimen. (NCT03146052).

Same-Day Regimen as an Alternative to Split Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Background

Split bowel preparation is the best regimen for colonoscopy. However, the same-day regimen can represent a valid alternative, but its use is limited by concerns about its cleansing ability, and to date, no convincing data support its use for routine colonoscopies.

Aim

To evaluate the cleansing, compliance, and adverse event rates of the same-day compared to the split regimen.

Results

A systematic literature search and meta-analysis was performed. Ten studies were included for a total of 1807 patients (880 in the same-day group and 927 in the split group). Overall, 85.3% patients in the same-day group vs. 86.3% in the split group had an adequate cleansing. Compliance was high for both, although patients were more compliant with the split than with the same-day prep (89.7% for same-day vs. 96.6% for split regimen). Sleep disturbance was more frequent in the split group, while nausea and vomit were more frequent in the same-day group. In the subgroup analysis, polyethylene glycol obtained a better cleansing rate when given as a split dose, with similar compliance and adverse events rates with both regimens.

Conclusion

Split and same-day regimens are both useful in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy with a different pattern of adverse events and better compliance for split preparations. Endoscopists can consider the same-day preparation as a valid alternative, especially when the split preparation does not fit the patients' needs.

Efficacy of 1.2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparations

BACKGROUND

A low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution that combines ascorbic acid with PEG-based electrolyte solution (PEG-ASC) is gaining mainstream acceptance for bowel preparation due to reduced volume and improved taste. Although several reports showed that bowel preparation with PEG-ASC volume lower than 2.0 L with laxative agents could be an alternative to traditional preparation regimen, the cleansing protocols have not been fully investigated.

AIM

To evaluate the cleansing efficacy of 1.2 L PEG-ASC solution comparing with 2.0 L PEG electrolyte (PEG-ELS) for bowel preparations.

METHODS

A randomized, single-blinded, open-label, single-center, non-inferiority study was conducted. In total, 312 Japanese adult patients (aged > 18 years) who underwent colonoscopy were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to bowel lavage with either 1.2 L of PEG-ASC solution with at least 0.6 L of an additional clear fluid (1.2 L PEG-ASC group) or 2.0 L of PEG-ELS (PEG-ELS group). Then, 48 mg of sennoside was administered at bedtime on the day before colonoscopy, and the designated drug solution was administered at the hospital on the day of colonoscopy. Bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The volume of fluid intake and required time for bowel preparation were evaluated. Furthermore, compliance, patient tolerance, and overall acceptability were evaluated using a patient questionnaire, which was assessed using a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

In total, 291 patients (1.2 L PEG-ASC group, 148; PEG-ELS group, 143) completed the study. There was no significant difference in successful cleansing, defined as a BBPS score ≥ 2 in each segment, between the two groups (1.2 L PEG-ASC group, 91.9%; PEG-ELS group, 90.2%; 95%CI: -0.03-0.09). The required time for bowel preparation was significantly shorter (164.95 min ± 68.95 min vs 202.16 min ± 68.69 min, P < 0.001) and the total fluid intake volume was significantly lower (2.23 L ± 0.55 L vs 2.47 L ± 0.56 L, P < 0.001) in the 1.2 L PEG-ASC group than in the PEG-ELS group. Palatability, acceptability of the volume of solution, and overall acceptability evaluated using a patient questionnaire, which was assessed by the visual analog scale, were significantly better in the 1.2 L PEG-ASC group than in the PEG-ELS group (7.70 cm ± 2.57 cm vs 5.80 cm ± 3.24 cm, P < 0.001). No severe adverse event was observed in each group.

CONCLUSION

The 1.2 L PEG-ASC solution was non-inferior to the 2.0 L PEG-ELS solution in terms of cleansing efficacy and had better acceptability among Japanese patients.

Quality measures improving endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health-care problem all over the world and CRC screening is effective in reducing mortality and increasing the 5-year survival. Colonoscopy has a central role in CRC screening. It can be performed as a primary test, as a recall policy after a positive result of another screening test, and for surveillance. Since effectiveness of endoscopic screening depends on adequate detection and removal of colonic polyps, consistent quality measures, which are useful in enhancing the diagnostic yield of examination, are essential. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to analyze current evidence from literature supporting quality measures able to refine endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer. Expert commentary: Quality measures namely a) time slot allotted to colonoscopy, b) assessment of indication, c) bowel preparation, d) Cecal intubation, e) withdrawal time, f) adenoma detection rate, g) proper management of lesions (polypectomy technique, polyps retrieval rate and tattooing of resection sites), and h) adequate follow-up intervals play a key role in identifying malignant and at-risk lesions and improving the outcome of screening. Adherence to these quality measures is critical to maximize the effectiveness of CRC screening, as well as, a proper technique of colonoscopy and a quality report of the procedure. Among all recommended measures, adenoma detection rate is the most important and must be kept above the recommended quality threshold by all physicians practicing in the setting of screening.