Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study

Comparison of adenoma miss rate and adenoma detection rate between conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopy with second-generation distal attachment cuff: a multicenter, randomized, back-to-back trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endocuff Vision (Olympus Europe, Hamburg, Germany) has been designed to enhance mucosal visualization, thereby improving detection of (pre-)malignant colorectal lesions. This multicenter, international, back-to-back, randomized colonoscopy trial compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between Endocuff Vision-assisted colonoscopy (EVC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS

Patients aged 40 to 75 years referred for non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test-based screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy were included at 10 hospitals and randomized into 4 groups: group 1, 2 × CC; group 2, CC followed by EVC; group 3, EVC followed by CC; and group 4, 2 × EVC. Primary outcomes included ADR and AMR.

RESULTS

A total of 717 patients were randomized, of whom 661 patients (92.2%) had 1 and 646 (90.1%) patients had 2 completed back-to-back colonoscopies. EVC did not significantly improve ADR compared to CC (41.1%; [95% confidence interval (CI), 36.1-46.3] vs 35.5% [95% CI, 30.7-40.6], respectively; P = .125), but EVC did reduce AMR by 11.7% (29.6% [95% CI, 23.6-36.5] vs 17.9% [95% CI, 12.5-23.5], respectively; P = .049). AMR of 2 × CC compared to 2 × EVC was also not significantly different (25.9% [95% CI, 19.3-33.9] vs 18.8% [95% CI, 13.9-24.8], respectively; P = .172). Only 3.7% of the polyps missed during the first procedures had advanced pathologic features. Factors affecting risk of missing adenomas were age (P = .002), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (P = .008), and region where colonoscopy was performed (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our trial shows that EVC reduces the risk of missing adenomas but does not lead to a significantly improved ADR. Remarkably, 25% of adenomas are still missed during conventional colonoscopies, which is not different from miss rates reported 25 years ago; reassuringly, advanced features were only found in 3.7% of these missed lesions. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03418948.).

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.

Efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowel preparation for pediatric elective colonoscopy: Phase 3 RCT

Background and study aims Currently available polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based preparations continue to represent a challenge in children. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG preparation with a conventional PEG-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) in children and adolescents. Patients and methods This was a multicenter, randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial, where patients were randomized between PMF104 (Clensia) and a conventional PEG-ES (Klean-Prep), and stratified by age stratum (2 to <6; 6 to < 12;12 to <18 years). The primary endpoint was to test the non-inferiority of PMF104 versus PEG-ES, in terms of colon cleansing. Safety, tolerability, acceptability, palatability, and compliance were also assessed. Efficacy endpoints were analyzed in the per protocol set (PPS) and full analysis set (FAS) and safety and tolerability endpoints in the safety set (SAF). Results Of the 356 patients enrolled, 258 were included in the PPS, 346 in the FAS, and 351 in the SAF. Non-inferiority of PMF104 was confirmed for children aged > 6 years and for all age groups in PPS and FAS, respectively. Optimal compliance was reported more frequently in the PMF104 than in the PEG-ES group, in both PPS (86.1% vs. 68.4%) and FAS (82.9% vs. 65.3%). Both preparations were equally safe and tolerable. Palatability and acceptability were considered better in the PMF104 group than in the PEG-ES group (27.1% vs. 15.3% and 15.3% vs. 3.5%, respectively). Conclusions In children aged 6 to 17 years, the new low-volume product PMF104 is non-inferior to the reference PEG-ES in terms of bowel cleansing, safety, and tolerability, with slightly better results in compliance, palatability, and acceptability.

Restrictive diets are unnecessary for colonoscopy: Non-inferiority randomized trial

Background and study aims In colonoscopy, preparation is often regarded as the most burdensome part of the intervention. Traditionally, specific diets have been recommended, but the evidence to support this policy is insufficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the decision not to follow a restrictive diet on bowel preparation and colonoscopy outcomes. Patients and methods This was a multicenter, controlled, non-inferiority randomized trial with FIT-positive screening colonoscopy. The subjects were assigned to follow the current standard (1-day low residue diet [LRD]) or a liberal diet. The allocation was balanced for the risk of inadequate cleansing using the Dik et al. score. All participants received the same instructions for morning colonoscopy preparation. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate preparations as defined by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes included tolerability and measures of colonoscopy performance and quality. Results A total of 582 subjects were randomized. Of these, 278 who received the liberal diet and 275 who received the 1-day LRD were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority was demonstrated with adequate preparation rates of 97.8% in the 1-day LRD and 96.4% in the liberal diet group. Tolerability was higher with the liberal diet (94.7% vs. 83.2%). No differences were found with respect to cecal intubation time, aspirated volume, or length of the examination. Global and right colon average adenoma detection rates per colonoscopy were similar. Conclusions The liberal diet was non-inferior to the 1-day LRD, and increased tolerability. Colonoscopy performance and quality were not affected. (NCT05032794).

The status quo of short videos as a source of health information regarding bowel preparation before colonoscopy

Background

For high-quality colonoscopies, adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite, closely associated with the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety of colonoscopy. Although popular-science short videos can help people quickly access health information, the overall quality of such short videos as a source of health information regarding bowel preparation before colonoscopy is unclear. Therefore, we intend to conduct a cross-sectional study to investigate the quality of bowel preparation information before colonoscopy through short videos taken on TikTok and Bilibili.

Methods

The Chinese phrases "colonoscopy" and "bowel preparation" were used as keywords to search for and screen the top 100 videos in the comprehensive rankings on TikTok and Bilibili. The Global Quality Score (GQS) and the modified DISCERN score were used to assess the quality of the information provided in these short videos.

Results

A total of 186 short videos were included in this study; 56.5% of them were posted by health professionals, whereas 43.5% of them were posted by nonhealth professionals. The overall quality of these videos was unsatisfactory, with a median DISCERN score of 3 (2-4) and a median GQS of 3 (3-4). The radar maps showed that videos posted by gastroenterologists had higher completeness scores regarding outcomes, management, and risk factors, while nongastroenterologists had higher completeness scores concerning adverse effects, symptoms, and definitions of bowel preparation. Additionally, the median DISCERN score and GQS of the videos posted by gastroenterologists were 3 (3-4) and 3 (3-4), respectively, whereas the quality of the videos posted by patients was the worst, with a median DISCERN score of 2 (1-2) and a median GQS of 2 (1.25-3).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the overall quality of health information-related videos on bowel preparation before colonoscopy posted on specified short video platforms was not satisfactory. Gastroenterologists provide more information on the outcomes, management, and risk factors for bowel preparation before colonoscopy, while nongastroenterologists focus on adverse effects, symptoms, and definitions of bowel preparation.

Comparison of Objectively Assessed Versus Patient-Reported Clarity of Last Rectal Effluent for the Prediction of Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Case-Control Study

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a crucial procedure for various clinical purposes, including screening for colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for its success. Poor bowel preparation can lead to bad outcomes. An objective assessment of bowel preparation quality is typically only possible after the colonoscope is inserted. This study aimed to objectively correlate the clarity of last rectal effluent, directly collected in a transparent container, with the quality of bowel preparation, and compare it with patient-reported descriptions.

METHODS

This prospective, single-centre, case-control study obtained ethical clearance and included patients aged >18 years undergoing colonoscopies. Cases included patients who collected the last rectal effluent and took photographs, while controls relied on verbal descriptions. Data collected included demographics, clinical information, bowel preparation quality, and lastly, stool clarity. A statistical analysis was performed to identify correlations and associations.

RESULTS

Of the 70 included patients, 45 were male. The mean age was 35.8 ± 14.3 years. Cases had a higher mean age (37.8 ± 14.6). A higher number of cases had comorbidities (11, 68.8%). Photographic recording of the last rectal effluent was not associated with the adequacy of bowel preparation. Thin yellow fluid was the most common last-rectal effluent clarity (33, 47.1%). Thin, clear fluid was significantly associated with adequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSION

Objective assessment of last rectal effluent clarity correlates with the quality of bowel preparation. This can improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopies and potentially reduce the need for repeat procedures, contributing to better patient outcomes and cost savings in healthcare systems.

The impact of endoscopist performance and patient factors on distal adenoma detection and colorectal cancer incidence

BACKGROUND

High quality endoscopy is key for detecting and removing precursor lesions to colorectal cancer (CRC). Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) measure endoscopist performance. Improving other components of examinations could increase adenoma detection.

AIMS

To investigate how endoscopist performance at flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) affects adenoma detection and CRC incidence.

METHODS

Among 34,139 participants receiving FS screening by the main endoscopist at one of 13 centres in the UK FS Screening Trial, median follow-up was 17 years. Factors examined included family history of CRC, bowel preparation quality, insertion and withdrawal time, bowel segment reached, patient pain and ADR. Odds ratios (OR) for distal adenoma detection were estimated by logistic regression. Hazard ratios (HR) for distal CRC incidence were estimated by Cox regression.

RESULTS

At screening, 4,104 participants had distal adenomas detected and 168 participants developed distal CRC during follow-up. In multivariable models, a family history of CRC (yes vs. no: OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.21-1.62), good or adequate bowel preparation quality (vs. excellent: OR 0.84, 95%CI 0.74-0.95; OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.49-0.65, respectively) and longer insertion and withdrawal times (≥ 4.00 vs. < 2.00 min: OR 1.96, 95%CI 1.68-2.29; OR 32.79, 95%CI 28.22-38.11, respectively) were associated with adenoma detection. Being screened by endoscopists with low or intermediate ADRs, compared to high ADRs, was positively associated with CRC incidence (multivariable: HR 4.71, 95%CI 2.65-8.38; HR 2.16, 95%CI 1.22-3.81, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel preparation quality and longer insertion and withdrawal time are key for improving distal adenoma detection. Higher ADRs were associated with a lower risk of distal CRC.

Engaging primary care physicians is critical in the screening and diagnosis of colorectal cancer at safety-net hospital systems

Background

Primary care physicians (PCP) play a key role in offering colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings, particularly amongst underserved populations. Given potential delays in or omission of CRC screening in the absence of a PCP, we aimed to determine stage of CRC at diagnosis in an underserved population.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted at two Los Angeles County safety-net hospitals. Inclusion criteria were a CRC diagnosis between 2018 and 2021 and age between 50 and 75 years at diagnosis time. The primary outcome was the cancer stage at diagnosis.

Results

A total of 373 patients were included, of those, 52.5 % had a PCP. Compared to others, PCP was similar in age, racial composition, and primary spoken language (Table 1). Of patients with a PCP, 52.0% were diagnosed by screening. After screening, the most common indication for colonoscopy were blood per rectum (24.9 %) and imaging findings (18.0 %). Patients with a PCP had a significantly lower rate of late stage CRC than those without a PCP (42.4 % vs. 68.0 %, p < 0.001). After adjustment, having a PCP was associated with significantly reduced odds of late stage CRC (Adjusted Odds Ratio 0.83, 95 % Confidence Interval [0.68-1.04]). Having a PCP was not associated with any adjusted increase in number of adenomas or tumor size.

Conclusions

Patients with a PCP, irrespective of undergoing screening, were diagnosed at earlier CRC stages. This underlines the crucial role of PCPs in CRC and diagnosis, reinforcing the need for their active involvement in these processes.

What are the priority quality indicators for colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice?

Colonoscopy is widely used as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tool. The effectiveness of a screening colonoscopy is associated with a decreased risk of CRC. However, colonoscopy is an operator-dependent procedure, and endoscopists' quality performance varies widely. This article reviewed the priority metrics and practices that contribute to high-quality screening colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice. With growing evidence, quality indicators have been subject to intense research and associated with reducing postcolonoscopy CRC incidence and mortality. Some quality metrics can reflect an endoscopy unit-based practice (i.e. quality of bowel preparation and withdrawal time). Other quality indicators primarily reflect individuals' skill and knowledge (i.e. cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, and appropriately assigned follow-up colonoscopy interval). Measurement and improvement of priority quality indicators for colonoscopy should be made at both the endoscopist and unit levels. Substantial evidence supports the impact of high-quality colonoscopy in reducing the incidence of postcolonoscopy CRC.

Models and scores to predict adequacy of bowel preparation before colonoscopy

Adequate bowel preparation is of paramount importance for the effectiveness of preventive colonoscopy as it allows visualization of the mucosal surface and adenomas detection, the pre-malignant lesions leading to colon cancer. Still, a considerable portion of patients fail to achieve adequate bowel cleansing, with predictors of inadequate bowel preparation being at the focal point of several studies, so far. Incorporation of these factors within predictive models has been implemented in an effort to promptly identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation and thus, timely adopt practices that have the potential to improve bowel cleansing. Ultimately, this could lead to improved procedural outcomes not only in terms of neoplastic detection rate but also interval repeat procedures, expenses, patient convenience and adverse events risk. Aim of this manuscript is to present an up to date overview of all predictive scores/models addressing bowel cleansing adequacy in everyday clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety of oral sodium sulfate tablet compared with 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate: a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Low-volume bowel preparation solutions, including 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-A), have been developed to improve tolerability. The oral sodium sulfate tablet (OST) is a new agent with simethicone as a preloaded component. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of OST compared to 1-L PEG-A.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, controlled study was performed with randomization into the OST (group A) and 1-L PEG-A (group B) groups. Bowel preparation efficacy was assessed on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Bubble Scale. Safety and tolerability were evaluated using a questionnaire and laboratory examination.

RESULTS

Final analysis was performed on 171 patients (group A: 87, group B: 84). The proportion of bowel preparation success (BBPS ≥ 2 for each colonic segment) in group A was not inferior compared to group B (95.4% vs 96.4%, P = 0.736, 1-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit -7.0%). The adenoma detection rate was not different (59.6% vs 41.9%; P = 0.087). The bubble scale was better in group A (0.2 ± 0.9 vs 1.9 ± 1.7, P < 0.001). All adverse events were mild in both groups. Nausea was less frequent in group A (14.9% vs 38.1%, P = 0.001). Overall satisfaction was better in group A (8.1 ± 2.1 vs 6.4 ± 2.8, P < 0.001). No clinically significant laboratory abnormality developed in both groups. These findings were similarly shown in old patients ≥65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Both OST and 1-L PEG-A were efficacious, safe, and tolerable for bowel preparation of colonoscopy. The OST showed fewer bubbles and slightly better tolerability.

Interobserver Variation of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

BACKGROUD/AIMS

Several bowel preparation scales have been developed, but they are variably validated to guide clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the interobserver reliability between internal and external endoscopists using the Harefield Cleaning Scale (HCS).

METHODS

Data was collected from a study evaluating the efficacy of oral sulfate tablets in patients undergoing colonoscopy. The assessments of bowel cleansing were carried out by four internal endoscopists at the time of the procedure, and colonoscopy video recordings were reviewed independently by three external endoscopists. Interobserver reliability was quantified using Cohen's Kappa coefficient, and scores and grades of each segment were compared between internal and external endoscopist groups.

RESULTS

Among 83 colonoscopy videos, interobserver reliability yielded a fair agreement between internal and external endoscopists, with a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.39 (95% CI 0.08-0.70). Successful overall preparation rates (100% vs 98.8%) and high-quality preparation rates (88% vs 94%) were excellent and comparable between the two groups. In contrast, one case of unsuccessful cleansing (grade C) was documented, only in the external group. In addition, the interobserver reliability between internal and external endoscopists comparing each segmental score yielded a slight agreement in the descending colon (0.11, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.23) and sigmoid colon (0.04, 95% CI - 0.18 to 0.26).

DISCUSSION

Interobserver reliability between internal and external endoscopists using the HCS was fair. However, the HCS may be limited as a reliable scale for assessing bowel preparation quality in the left colon, where liquid is mainly retained in the left lateral position.

Lubiprostone plus polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) versus PEG-ELS for bowel preparation in chronic constipation: a randomized controlled trial

Colonoscopy is considered the standard procedure for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel cleansing is an important determinant of the efficacy of colonoscopy screening. Currently, there is no standard method of bowel preparation for patients with chronic constipation. The aim was to access the rate of adequate bowel cleansing achieved using split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) plus lubiprostone in comparison with split-dose PEG-ELS alone. A single-centre, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Seventy-eight constipated patients aged 18-75 years who were indicated for colonoscopy in the gastroenterology unit of Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen University, between February 2020 and February 2021 were randomly allocated to receive either split-dose PEG-ELS in combination with lubiprostone (N = 39) or split-dose PEG-ELS alone (N = 39) before colonoscopy. Adequate bowel cleansing was defined as an Ottawa bowel preparation score ≤ 7. The rate of adequate bowel cleansing was comparable between the PEG-ELS plus lubiprostone group and the PEG-ELS alone group (50% vs. 52.9%, p value = 0.81) with a relative risk of 1.13 (95% CI = 0.43-2.91). There were no significant differences in adenoma detection rate (41.2% vs. 35.3%, p value = 0.62), adverse events, acceptance, compliance, or patient satisfaction between the 2 groups. No additional benefit to successful bowel preparation was achieved by the combination of lubiprostone and PEG-ELS in chronic constipation patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Correlation between prescribing doctor attributes and intestinal cleanliness in colonoscopy: a study of 22522 patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the correlation between different attributes of doctors who prescribe colonoscopies and the cleanliness of the intestine to guide the development of colonoscopy application protocols.

METHODS

Data on colonoscopy cases conducted in the gastroenterology department of Hangzhou First People's Hospital between April 2018 and March 2021 were collected. The gender, age, professional attributes of the prescribing doctors, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score were recorded. In addition, the correlation between the prescribing doctors' characteristics and the intestine's cleanliness was analyzed.

RESULTS

The study included 22,522 patients with a mean BBPS score of 6.83 ± 1.94. There were 16,459 male and 6,063 female doctors with similar BBPS scores (p = 0.212). The study found no significant difference in BBPS scores between 19,338 internist and 3,184 non-internist (p = 0.154). However, BBPS scores differed significantly between 18,168 gastroenterologists and 4,354 non-gastroenterologists (p = 0.016) and between 19,990 intestinal-related specialties(gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery) and 2,532 non-intestinal-related specialties (p = 0.000). In addition, BBPS scores were significantly different between 18,126 prescribing endoscopiests and 4,396 non-endoscopiests (p = 0.014). However, there was no significant difference in BBPS scores among doctors of different ages (p = 0.190). The study found significant differences in BBPS scores between male and female patients and those under or over 40 years (p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

To improve colonoscopy preparation quality, priority should be given to doctors in gastroenterology, intestinal-related specialties, and endoscopiests. Their expertise may result in better education and improved bowel cleanliness.

Bowel cleansing effectiveness and safety of 1L PEG + Asc in the real-world setting: Observational, retrospective, multicenter study of over 13000 patients

Background and study aims Effective bowel cleansing is critical for detecting lesions during colonoscopy, highlighting the importance of bowel preparations. 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbate (Asc) is the only recommended 1L PEG product in Europe and the United States. Its efficacy was demonstrated in large-scale controlled trials and confirmed in smaller-scale real-world studies. However, no large-scale real-world data exist. Patients and methods This observational, retrospective, multicenter study, used outpatient follow-up data from medical records from 10 centers in Spain and two in Portugal. Outpatients aged ≥18 years using 1L PEG + Asc as bowel preparation were included. The main outcome measures were overall adequate colon cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score ≥6 with BBPS score ≥2 in each segment) and high-quality cleansing of the right colon (BBPS score=3). Results Data from 13169 eligible patients were included. Overall cleansing success was achieved in 89.3% (95%CI 88.7%-89.8%) and high-quality cleansing in the right colon in 49.3% (95%CI 48.4%-50.2%) of patients. For the overnight split-dose and same-day regimens, overall adequate quality cleansing success rate was 94.7% and 86.7% ( P <0.0001) and high-quality cleansing of the right colon rate was 65.4% and 41.4% ( P <0.0001), respectively. Colonoscopy was completed in 97.3% of patients, with non-completion due to poor preparation in only 0.8%; 2.3% of patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE). Conclusions This large-scale, real-world study demonstrates the effectiveness of 1L PEG + Asc in the total and right colon, with a low percentage of patients with AEs in routine clinical practice.

Effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC versus other bowel preparations for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of nine randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) preparation has been recently developed to improve patients' experience in colonoscopy. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC compared with those of other bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing 1-L PEG-ASC with other bowel preparations published through July 2022. A random-effects model was applied for pooling the results; heterogeneity was expressed as I2.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed significantly higher cleansing success (CS) (OR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.25-1.81; p < 0.01, I2 = 0%) and right-colon high-quality cleansing (HQC) (OR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.21-2.31; p < 0.01, I2 = 43%) with 1-L PEG-ASC compared to the other preparations. The pooled estimate of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) did not significantly differ between the two groups either in the overall (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.87-1.20; p = 0.79, I2 = 0%) or split-dosing regimen subgroup analysis (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.84-1.18; p = 0.94, I2 = 0%). A significantly higher pooled estimate of the number of patients with adverse events (AEs) (OR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.23-1.84; p<0.01, I2 = 0%) and incidence of AEs (IRR=1.33; 95% CI = 1.11-1.58; p<0.01, I2 = 71%) was observed with 1-L PEG-ASC than with the other preparations. No serious AEs or deaths occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to other preparations, 1-L PEG-ASC yielded higher overall CS, higher right-colon HQC rates, and similar ADR. The number of patients with AEs and incidence of the total AEs were significantly higher with 1-L PEG-ASC in the absence of serious AEs.

Effect of Visual Booklets to Improve Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopy: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

An optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy is essential to increasing the quality of the examination. Visual booklets have been proposed with conflicting results to enhance bowel preparation. A literature search was performed in March 2023 in the most important databases. Only RCTs were selected. We calculated odd ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes. Mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) were used for continuous outcomes. We estimated heterogeneity with the Chi² and the I² statistics. In cases of high heterogeneity, a random effect model was used. Six studies were selected, enrolling 1755 patients overall. Adequate bowel preparation was observed in 86.7% of the booklet group versus 77.5% of the control group, with an OR = 2.31 in favor of the booklet. In studies using a 4-L PEG-based preparation, no difference compared to controls was observed, while in non-PEG formulations, preparation with booklets was better than in controls (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 1.82-14.27, p = 0.002). Two studies were performed in an inpatient setting without any differences between booklets and controls, while outpatients receiving booklets had better results (OR = 7.13, 95% CI 5.39-9.45, p < 0.001). The adenoma detection rate was similar between the two groups. In conclusion, booklets are useful to improve bowel preparation. Outpatient settings and preparations not containing PEG could benefit more from booklets.

Optimizing adenoma detection in screening-related colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Screening-related colonoscopy is a vital component of screening initiatives to both diagnose and prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), with prevention being reliant upon early and accurate detection of pre-malignant lesions. Several strategies, techniques, and interventions exist to optimize endoscopists' adenoma detection rates (ADR).

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review provides an overview of the importance of ADR and other colonoscopy quality indicators. It then summarizes the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of the following domains in terms of improving ADR: endoscopist factors, pre-procedural parameters, peri-procedural parameters, intra-procedural strategies and techniques, antispasmodics, distal attachment devices, enhanced colonoscopy technologies, enhanced optics, and artificial intelligence. These summaries are based on an electronic search of the databases Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane performed on December 12, 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the prevalence and associated morbidity and mortality of CRC, the quality of screening-related colonoscopy quality is appropriately prioritized by patients, endoscopists, units, and payers alike. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy should be up to date regarding available strategies, techniques, and interventions to optimize their performance.

Association of Life Expectancy With Surveillance Colonoscopy Findings and Follow-up Recommendations in Older Adults

Importance

Surveillance after prior colon polyps is the most frequent indication for colonoscopy in older adults. However, to our knowledge, the current use of surveillance colonoscopy, clinical outcomes, and follow-up recommendations in association with life expectancy, factoring in both age and comorbidities, have not been studied.

Objective

To evaluate the association of estimated life expectancy with surveillance colonoscopy findings and follow-up recommendations among older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This registry-based cohort study used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) linked with Medicare claims data and included adults in the NHCR who were older than 65 years, underwent colonoscopy for surveillance after prior polyps between April 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, and had full Medicare Parts A and B coverage and no Medicare managed care plan enrollment in the year prior to colonoscopy. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to March 2021.

Exposures

Life expectancy (<5 years, 5 to <10 years, or ≥10 years), estimated using a validated prediction model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were clinical findings of colon polyps or colorectal cancer (CRC) and recommendations for future colonoscopy.

Results

Among 9831 adults included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 73.2 (5.0) years and 5285 (53.8%) were male. A total of 5649 patients (57.5%) had an estimated life expectancy of 10 or more years, 3443 (35.0%) of 5 to less than 10 years, and 739 (7.5%) of less than 5 years. Overall, 791 patients (8.0%) had advanced polyps (768 [7.8%]) or CRC (23 [0.2%]). Among the 5281 patients with available recommendations (53.7%), 4588 (86.9%) were recommended to return for future colonoscopy. Those with longer life expectancy or more advanced clinical findings were more likely to be told to return. For example, among patients with no polyps or only small hyperplastic polyps, 132 of 227 (58.1%) with life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return for future surveillance colonoscopy vs 940 of 1257 (74.8%) with life expectancy of 5 to less than 10 years and 2163 of 2272 (95.2%) with life expectancy of 10 years or more (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, the likelihood of finding advanced polyps and CRC on surveillance colonoscopy was low regardless of life expectancy. Despite this observation, 58.1% of older adults with less than 5 years' life expectancy were recommended to return for future surveillance colonoscopy. These data may help refine decision-making about pursuing or stopping surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with a history of polyps.

Effect of acuity level and patient characteristics on bowel preparation quality: a retrospective cohort study of inpatient colonoscopies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy is the primary method to detect mucosal abnormalities in the colon, rectum, and terminal ileum. Inadequate bowel preparation is a common problem and can impede successful visualization during colonoscopy. Although studies identified hospitalization as a predictor of inadequate bowel preparation, acuity of care vary greatly within this patient population. The current study aims to examine the effect of patient characteristics and care level predictors on inadequate bowel preparation quality within the inpatient setting.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in a single urban level 1 trauma medical center and included adult patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy while admitted in the hospital from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020. We examined the level of inpatient care between the General Medical Floor (GMF), Intensive Care Units (ICU) and Telemetry Unit (TU) and assessed this association with bowel preparation quality, adjusting for known and unknown predictors.

RESULTS

Of 538 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 47.4% were admitted into TU, 43.7% into GMF and 8.9% into ICU. For the entire sample, 72.7% of patients achieved good or excellent preparation and quality of bowel preparation differed by care level (P = 0.01). Patients from the critical care units were less likely to achieve adequate bowel preparation when compared to GMF (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.36; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.17,0.77), after adjusting for patient characteristics, medications, physical status, and preparation regimen. No significant difference in Bowel Preparation Quality (BPQ) was identified between patients from GMF and TU (OR 0.96; 95%CI 0.61, 1.52). Furthermore, adequate BPQ was associated with withdrawal time and cecal intubation, but not higher adenoma detection rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest the ICU setting is an independent predictor for inadequate bowel preparation and patients with prior opioid and laxative use may be more likely to have inadequate bowel preparation in the hospital. Future interventions should prioritize preprocedural clinician meetings for critical care unit patients, including a more detailed readiness assessment and thorough medication history.

Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature

Adequate bowel cleansing is critical for a high-quality colonoscopy because it affects diagnostic accuracy and adenoma detection. Nevertheless, almost a quarter of procedures are still carried out with suboptimal preparation, resulting in longer procedure times, higher risk of complications, and higher likelihood of missing lesions. Current guidelines recommend high-volume or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)/non-PEG-based split-dose regimens. In patients who have had insufficient bowel cleansing, the colonoscopy should be repeated the same day or the next day with additional bowel cleansing as a salvage option. A strategy that includes a prolonged low-fiber diet, a split preparation regimen, and a colonoscopy within 5 h of the end of preparation may increase cleansing success rates in the elderly. Furthermore, even though no specific product is specifically recommended in the other cases for difficult-to-prepare patients, clinical evidence suggests that 1-L PEG plus ascorbic acid preparation are associated with higher cleansing success in hospitalized and inflammatory bowel disease patients. Patients with severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min) should be prepared with isotonic high volume PEG solutions. Few data on cirrhotic patients are currently available, and no trials have been conducted in this population. An accurate characterization of procedural and patient variables may lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation, especially in patients undergoing resection of left colon lesions, where intestinal preparation has a poor outcome. The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence on the risk factors influencing the quality of bowel cleansing in difficult-to-prepare patients, as well as strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in these patients.

Efficacy of oral sulfate tablets for bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The adenoma detection rate (ADR), which is closely related to bowel preparation, is the most important factor for colonoscopy quality assessment. New oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) have been developed to improve bowel preparation compliance. This study evaluated the efficacy of OSTs in terms of the ADR and bowel preparation status.

METHODS

Medical records of subjects under the age of 65 who underwent colonoscopy from March 2019 to February 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-A) was used as a bowel preparation for the first half of the study period, and OSTs were used for the second half. In total, 16 971 subjects were included in the study: 9199 (54.2%) used PEG-A, and 7772 (45.8%) used OSTs. Bowel cleansing quality was assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

RESULTS

The average age was 50 years. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was higher in the OST group than in the PEG-A group (97.2% vs 95.0%, P < 0.001). The mean BBPS was also higher in the OST group (8.02 vs 7.75, P < 0.001). The adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the ADR and the sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR) were higher in the OST group than in the PEG-A group (APC 0.56 ± 1.01 vs 0.48 ± 0.91, P < 0.001; ADR 34.5% vs 30.7%, P < 0.001; SSPDR 5.2% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PEG-A, OSTs yielded superior APC, ADRs, SSPDRs, and better bowel cleanliness. Therefore, OSTs are a good alternative for patients who have difficulty taking large-volume bowel preparation formulations.

Endoscopic polypectomy for malignant polyps: Should tumor location (right versus left side) guide clinical decisions?

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines consider endoscopic resection appropriate treatment for malignant colon polyps with negative margins, low-grade histology, and no lymphovascular invasion. While increasing literature demonstrates a worse prognosis for advanced stage right- versus left-sided colon cancers after curative treatment, there is paucity of data regarding prognostic effect of location in patients undergoing endoscopic resection of T1 polyps. We hypothesized the more aggressive biologic behavior observed in advanced right-sided cancers would be similarly represented in malignant polyps, and this location would be associated with lower overall survival.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for adults with T1NxMx tumors who underwent endoscopic polypectomy (2004-2017). Patients with positive margins or without follow-up information were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 2,337 patients met inclusion criteria; 22% had right-sided polyps. Endoscopically excised proximal tumors were more common in elderly, and those with public insurance and more comorbidities (all P < .01). Among patients with complete pathologic data, there were no statistical differences between right- and left-sided polyps with 1 cm median size, >92% without lymphovascular invasion, and 100% without tumor deposits. Univariate analysis showed 73% vs 86% 5-year overall survival for right versus left polyps (P < .01). After adjustment for available confounders, right-sided location remained significantly associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.21-1.83).

CONCLUSION

In this national cohort of patients with endoscopically excised malignant polyps, we identified right colon location as an independent prognostic factor associated with increased risk of mortality. Our data suggest polyp location should be taken into consideration when making clinical decisions regarding treatment and/or surveillance.

Utility of repeat colonoscopy within 1 year: a patient-level analysis

Patients undergo colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening and for the evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms. Analysis of large administrative databases has demonstrated that some patients undergo repeat colonoscopies at intervals inconsistent with current recommendations, but these studies do not provide patient-level details. The medical records of 110 patients undergoing repeat colonoscopies within 1 year of their index colonoscopies at a tertiary care hospital-based endoscopy center were retrospectively reviewed to determine patient demographics, gastrointestinal symptoms, and endoscopic findings. Thirty-five patients had poor bowel preparations, and 11 patients had a history of colorectal cancer. Thirty-four patients had polyps identified during their index colonoscopies, and 28 patients had no polyps identified during their index colonoscopies. Eleven patients in the nonpolyp group had new endoscopic findings identified during the repeat colonoscopies. Twenty patients who had polyps identified on their index colonoscopies had 44 polyps identified on repeat colonoscopies. Repeat colonoscopies within 1 year occurred relatively infrequently in this endoscopy center. Indications included poor bowel preparation with incomplete studies, colonic polyps with incomplete resection, multiple polyps resulting in the possibility of missed polyps, and new gastrointestinal symptoms.

One-Day versus Three-Day Low-Residue Diet and Bowel Preparation Quality before Colonoscopy: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

One-day low-residue diet (LRD) is recommended before colonoscopy, but only three single-center trials compared the 1-day versus 3-day LRD. The aim of this multicenter study was to compare the impact of a 3-day versus 1-day LRD on its ability to adequately and successfully prepare the bowel of outpatients that require a colonoscopy. The outpatients' tolerance and adherence to the LRD were also considered.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients were randomized to 1-day versus 3-day LRD at three open-access endoscopy units. The primary endpoint consisted of the proportion of patients with a satisfactory degree of bowel cleanliness (Score 2-3 on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] in each segment). Secondary endpoints were patients' tolerance and adherence to the prescribed diet evaluated by a standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

289 patients were included in the study (1-day LRD arm = 143, 3-day LRD arm = 146). BBPS ≥2 was not significantly different in the two dietary regimens in any of the three colonic segments (71% vs. 72%, p = 0.9). The percentage of patients with incomplete preparation was similar in the two arms (9% vs. 9%; p = 1.0). No significant differences were found among colonoscopy findings in terms of abnormalities (81% vs. 84%, p = 0.8). Both groups scored similarly in overall tolerance to LRD (48% vs. 49%, p = 1.0) and also in whether they would have adopted a different dietary regimen (p = 0.3).

CONCLUSION

Our multicenter randomized study confirmed that optimal bowel cleansing is reached through a 1-day LRD.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: observational study in a supplementary health system

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer is responsible for 9.4% of cancer deaths, and low polyp detection rate and cecal intubation rate increase the risks of interval colorectal cancer. Despite several population studies that address colonoscopy quality measures, there is still a shortage of these studies in Latin America. The aim of this study was to assess quality indicators in colonoscopy, enabling future strategies to improve colorectal cancer prevention.

METHODS

An observational retrospective study, in which all colonoscopies performed in 11 hospitals were evaluated through a review of medical records. Information such as procedure indication, colorectal polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, quality of colonic preparation, and immediate adverse events were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

In 17,448 colonoscopies performed by 86 endoscopists, 57.9% were in patients aged 50 to 74 years old. Colon preparation was adequate in 94.4% procedures, with rates of cecal intubation and polyp detection of 94 and 36.6%, respectively. Acute adverse events occurred in 0.2%. In 53.9%, high-definition imaging equipment was used. The procedure location, colon preparation and high-definition equipment influenced polyp detection rates (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The extraction and analysis of electronic medical records showed that there are opportunities for improvement in colonoscopy quality indicators in the participating hospitals.

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.

Comparison of optimal bowel cleansing effects of 1L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: A randomized controlled study

Various low-volume bowel cleansing formulations that improve compliance have been approved and are being used in clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid with that of sodium picosulfate (PICO) with magnesium citrate. This was a multicenter, randomized controlled, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized into a 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid group and a PICO with magnesium citrate group according to the bowel cleansing agent used. Colonoscopy was performed as a single-blind study wherein the endoscopist had no information about any bowel preparation agent. The efficacy of bowel cleansing was assessed using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and adverse events, preferences, and satisfaction were evaluated using a patient-reported questionnaire before colonoscopy. A total of 254 participants were randomly assigned to two groups: 115 in the 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid group and 113 in the PICO with magnesium citrate group. Overall bowel cleansing success was not statistically different between the two groups (97.4 vs. 97.3%), confirming that 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid was not inferior to PICO with magnesium citrate (lower confidence limit, -4.15%; p = 1.00). High-quality bowel cleansing was achieved in 87% of the 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid group and 77% of the PICO with magnesium citrate group (Lower confidence limit, 1.29%, p = 0.05). In terms of patient satisfaction, PICO with magnesium citrate was better, but compliance and side effects were similar in both groups. The 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid showed similar efficacy and adverse events as PICO with magnesium citrate. Although 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid is very effective in bowel preparation despite its small volume, it is necessary to increase satisfaction such as taste and feeling.

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.

Automated Detection of Bowel Preparation Scoring and Adequacy With Deep Convolutional Neural Networks

INTRODUCTION

Adequate bowel preparation is integral to effective colonoscopy. Inadequate bowel preparation has been associated with reduced adenoma detection rate and increased post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). As a result, the USMSTF recommends early interval reevaluation for colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation. However, bowel preparation documentation is highly variable with subjective interpretation. In this study, we developed deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN) to objectively ascertain bowel preparation.

METHODS

Bowel preparation scores were assigned using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Bowel preparation adequacy and inadequacy were defined as BBPS ≥2 and BBPS <2, respectively. A total of 38523 images were extracted from 28 colonoscopy videos and split into 26966 images for training, 7704 for validation, and 3853 for testing. Two DCNNs were created using a Densenet-169 backbone in PyTorch library evaluating BBPS score and bowel preparation adequacy. We used Adam optimiser with an initial learning rate of 3 × 10-4 and a scheduler to decay the learning rate of each parameter group by 0.1 every 7 epochs along with focal loss as our criterion for both classifiers.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy for BBPS subclassification and determination of adequacy was 91% and 98%, respectively. The accuracy for BBPS 0, BBPS 1, BBPS 2, and BBPS 3 was 84%, 91%, 85%, and 96%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We developed DCCNs capable of assessing bowel preparation adequacy and scoring with a high degree of accuracy. However, this algorithm will require further research to assess its efficacy in real-time colonoscopy.

Improving the quality of bowel preparation by smartphone education platform prior to colonoscopy: a randomized trail

OBJECTIVE

Adequate bowel preparation is an essential factor in colonoscopy. Enhanced education on the procedure of bowel preparation is very necessary for patients before colonoscopy. We analysed the influence of a novel education platform on bowel preparation quality before colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study enrolled outpatients who underwent colonoscopy in the digestive endoscopy centre of Wuhan Tongji Hospital. They were divided into the control group and the intervention group according to different educational ways. The control group patients were provided with the regular colonoscopy preparation leaflet. The intervention group patients were asked to add the education platform. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation. The study was registered at Chinese ClinicalTrials.gov (ChiCTR2100053547, 24/11/2021).

RESULTS

A total of 378 patients who underwent colonoscopy were enrolled, including 189 patients in the control group and 189 patients in the intervention group. The Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS) was significantly higher in the intervention group than that in the control group (p < .05). The adequate rate of bowel preparation in the intervention group was significantly improved than that in the control group (p = .000). Compared with the control group, the polyp detection rate (PDR) was significantly higher in the intervention group (p = .006), especially in the left colonic (p = .006). Among constipation patients, the adequate rate of bowel preparation (p = .000) and the PDR (p = .004) were significantly improved than that in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The smartphone education platform may effectively improve bowel preparation quality, PDR, and patients' compliance.Key messagesThe quality of bowel preparation mainly relies on the patients' compliance with the bowel preparation instructions.The study reveals that the superiority of the smartphone education platform by Mini Program in improving bowel preparation and colorectal polyp detection rate.The smartphone education platform may provide a more effective, convenient, and labour-saving way to provide further improvements to patients prior to colonoscopy.

Split-dose versus day-before regimen of sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy in children: Randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) split-dose regimen is recommended as the option of choice for colon preparation before colonoscopy in children and adults. Sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (SPMC) is equally effective but better tolerated than PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in children. The aim of this study was to assess the superiority of SPMC split-dose regimen compared with SPMC day-before regimen for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy in children.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, single-blind study. Pediatric inpatients undergoing colonoscopy received SPMC either in the day-before dosing or in split dosing. Overall bowel cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and was rated as successful when BBPS was ≥6. Patient tolerability, acceptability, and compliance were recorded.

RESULTS

The rate of successful cleansing level was significantly higher in the split-dose group than in the day-before group (P < 0.001). The BBPS scores were significantly higher in the split-dose group than in the day-before group for the whole colon (P < 0.001), the right colon (P < 0.001) and transverse colon (P < 0.001). Patient acceptability was better in the split-dose group (P = 0.0003; P = 0.005). The percentage of children needing nasogastric tube placement was better in the split-dose group (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The split-dose regimen of SPMC was superior to the day-before regimen in terms of successful colon cleansing and acceptability.

Predictive Factors of Adequate Bowel Cleansing for Colonoscopy in the Elderly: A Retrospective Analysis of a Prospective Cohort

Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in the elderly are not fully known, and current guidelines provide no specific recommendations. This study aimed to assess the difference in bowel cleansing in young and elderly patients and evaluate predictors of bowel cleansing in the elderly. We retrospectively reviewed a prospective cohort of 1289 patients performing colonoscopy after a 1-, 2-, or 4-L PEG-based preparation. All 1289 were included in the analysis. Overall, 44.6% of patients were aged ≥65 years. Cleansing success (CS) was achieved in 77.3% and 70.3% of patients aged <65 years and ≥65 years, respectively. At multivariable analysis, split regimen (OR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.34−4.38; p = 0.003), adequate cleansing at previous colonoscopy (OR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.14−4.73; p = 0.02), tolerability score (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.16−1.44; p < 0.001), a low-fiber diet for at least 3 days (OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.42−4.24; p = 0.001), and colonoscopy within 5 h after the end of preparation (OR = 2.67, 95% CI = 1.28−5.56; p = 0.008) were independently associated with CS in the elderly. Combining a low-fiber diet for at least 3 days, split preparation, and colonoscopy within 5 h allowed a CS rate above 90% and should always be encouraged. A 1-L PEG-ASC preparation was also associated with greater high-quality cleansing of the right colon and may be preferred.

Quality indicators for colonoscopy in Egypt: A prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Despite its wide availability, we do not have sufficient data aboutthe quality of colonoscopy in Egypt. In this study, we proposed 13 indicators to assess the quality of colonoscopy procedures in the included study centers aiming to attain a representative image of the quality of CS in Egypt.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicenter prospective study was conducted between July and December 2020, which included all patients who underwent colonoscopy in the participating centers. The following were the proposed quality indicators: indications for colonoscopy, preprocedure clinical assessment, obtaining written informed consent, adequate colon preparation, sedation, cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complication rate, photographic documentation, automated sterilization, regular infection control check, and well-equipped postprocedure recovery room.

RESULT

A total of 1,006 colonoscopy procedures were performed during the study duration in the included centers. Our analysis showed the following four indicators that were fulfilled in all centers: appropriate indications for colonoscopy, preprocedure assessment, written informed consent, and automated sterilization. However, photographic documentation and postprocedure follow-up room were fulfilled only in 57 %. Furthermore, 71 % of the centers performed regular infection control checks. Adequate colon preparation was achieved in 61 % of the procedures, 81 % of the procedures were performed under sedation, 95.4 % CIR, 11-min mean withdrawal time, 15 % ADR, and 0.1 % overall complication rate. Statistically significant factors affecting CIR were age > 40 years, high-definition endoscope, previous colon intervention, and rectal bleeding, whereas those affecting ADR were age > 40 years, the use of image enhancement, previous colon intervention, rectal bleeding, the use of water pump, and a withdrawal time of > 9 min.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed the bright aspects of colonoscopy practice in Egypt, including high CIRs and low complication rates; conversely, ADR, bowel cleansing quality, and infection control measures should be improved.

Oral mannitol for bowel preparation: a dose-finding phase II study

Background

Successful bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy depends on the instructions, diet, the laxative product, and patient adherence, which all affect colonoscopy quality. Nevertheless, there are no laxatives which combine effectiveness, safety, easy self-administration, good patient acceptance, and low cost. However, mannitol, a sugar alcohol, could be an attractive candidate for use in clinical practice if it is shown to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety.

Aims

The present phase II dose-finding study compared three doses of mannitol (50, 100, and 150 g) to identify the best dose to be used in a subsequent phase III study.

Methods

The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, caecal intubation rate, adherence, acceptability, and safety profile, including measurement of potentially dangerous colonic gas concentrations (CH4, H2, O2), were considered in all patients. A weighted algorithm was used to identify the best mannitol dose for use in the subsequent study.

Results

The per-protocol population included 60 patients in the 50 g group, 54 in the 100 g group, and 49 in the 150 g group. The 100 g dose was the best as it afforded optimal colon cleansing efficacy (94.4% of patients had adequate BP), adherence, acceptability, and safety, including negligible gas concentrations.

Conclusions

The present study demonstrated that the colon cleansing efficacy and safety of mannitol were dose dependent. Conversely, gas concentrations were not dose dependent and negligible in all patients. Combined evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, using a weighted algorithm, determined that mannitol 100 g was the best dose for the phase III study.

Existing Bowel Preparation Quality Scales Are Reliable in the Setting of Centralized Endoscopy Reading

BACKGROUND

Development of bowel preparation products has been based upon colon cleansing rating by a local endoscopist. It is unclear how bowel preparation scales perform when centrally evaluated.

AIMS

To evaluate the reliability of bowel preparation quality scales when assessed by central readers.

METHODS

Four central readers evaluated 52 videos in triplicate, 2 weeks apart, during the entire endoscopic procedure (insertion/withdrawal of the colonoscope) and exclusively on colonoscope withdrawal using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), Chicago Bowel Preparation scale, Harefield Cleansing Scale, Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPQS), Aronchick score, a visual analogue scale, and additional items proposed in a modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness process. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) for inter-rater reliability of the quality scales ranged from 0.51 to 0.65 (consistent with moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability) during the entire procedure. Corresponding intraclass correlation coefficients for intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 (consistent with substantial intra-rater reliability). Reliability was highest in the right colon and lowest in the left colon. No differences were observed in reliability when assessed for the procedure overall (insertion/withdrawal) relative to assessment on withdrawal alone.

CONCLUSION

All five bowel preparation quality scales had moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability. Panelists considered the Aronchick score too simplistic for clinical trials and recognized that assessment of residual fluid in the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale was not amenable to central assessment.

Impact of Multimedia CD Education on the Quality of Colon Preparation; A Single-Blind Randomized Study

Background: Routine bowel preparation instructions are usually given to patients in the form of oral explanations with written instructions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of multimedia training in the form of video CDs on the quality of colon preparation and other related indicators. Methods: 201 outpatients in three referral academic colonoscopy centers were randomly assigned to two groups. The first group (n=100) received supplementary video CD education besides the routine instructions (VCD group). The second group (n=101) received only routine instruction, which included oral and printed instructions (non-VCD group). Results: Complete use of colon cleansing medication was statistically and significantly better in the VCD group (P=0.038). Duration of colonoscopy was shorter in the VCD group (P=0.001), demand for conscious sedation was lesser in the VCD group (P=0.049), and the quality of colon preparation was better in the VCD group (P<0.00). There was no statistically significant difference in pain sensation (P=0.1), cecal intubation rate (P=0.3), and technical difficulty of the colonoscopy (P=0.1) in both groups. Conclusion: Supplementary education in the form of multimedia CD increases the patients' compliance to cleansing mediation consumption, improves the quality of bowel preparation, and decreases the duration of colonoscopy with lesser demands for conscious sedation.

Bowel preparation using 2-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen plus lubiprostone versus 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Colonoscopy is a standard procedure for evaluating colon diseases and screening for colorectal cancer, and bowel cleanliness prior to colonoscopy is key. The aim of this study was to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy of low-volume (2 L) split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus single-dose (24 µg) lubiprostone (LB) and high-volume (4 L) split-dose PEG.

Methods

Patients scheduled to undergo outpatient colonoscopy between December 2019 and June 2021 at Rajavithi Hospital were enrolled and randomized into two groups: 2 L PEG + LB or 4 L PEG. Colon cleanliness was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by reviewing images of the colon after completion of colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes comprised cecal intubation rate, procedure time, withdrawal time, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, patient satisfaction, compliance (based on complete ingestion of bowel preparation regimen), willingness to repeat the preparation regimen, and associated adverse events.

Results

One hundred and forty patients were included, with 70 in each group. The mean total and segment-specific BBPS scores were not significantly different between groups. However, the rate of adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the 2 L PEG + LB group than the 4 L PEG group (100% [95% CI 94.6–100] versus 88.4% [95% CI 78.4–94.9], p = 0.004) in the per-protocol analysis. Colonic polyps were the most common finding. The polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and all secondary outcomes were statistically similar in the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The combination of 2 L split-dose PEG plus LB improves bowel cleanliness (based on BBPS scores) to a comparable degree to the standard 4 L split-dose PEG, without additional adverse events and with a lower PEG volume.

Evaluation of the efficacy of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid and an oral sodium sulfate solution: A multi-center, prospective randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Low-volume bowel preparation has been developed to increase patient compliance. We compared 1 L of polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (PEG/Asc) and oral sodium sulfate (OSS) with respect to bowel preparation efficacy, compliance, and safety.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, randomized, single-blinded, non-inferiority trial was conducted in 3 hospitals. Patients were randomized to receive a bowel-cleansing agent. Bowel-cleansing efficacy was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Satisfaction, feeling, taste of the bowel cleanser, and adverse events after taking the bowel cleanser were investigated through a questionnaire. Additionally, blood samples were analyzed before and after bowel cleansing.

RESULTS

In total, 172 patients were analyzed (85 with 1 L PEG/Asc and 87 with OSS), and the mean BBPS scores were comparable between agents. The 1L PEG/Asc group tended to have a higher BBPS score in the right colon (2.22 vs 2.02; P = .08). The compliance of 1 L of PEG/Asc was comparable to that of OSS. Patients taking 1 L PEG/Asc reported greater thirst and dizziness (P = .04 and P = .047, respectively) than the OSS cohort. On the other hand, gastrointestinal symptoms such as vomiting and abdominal distension were more common in the OSS group, without statistical significance. In terms of laboratory adverse events, elevation of serum creatinine was found in both groups after taking the bowel cleansing agent (P < .001 for the 1L PEG/Asc group; P = .04 for the OSS group). However, most of the increased values were within the normal ranges.

DISCUSSION

The 1L PEG/Asc treatment was comparable to OSS in terms of bowel preparation efficacy, compliance, and safety.

Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Although oral sulfate solution (OSS) has been revealed to be not only safe and efficacious but also noninferior to polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG + ASC), it is unclear whether OSS can ultimately increase the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). We performed this meta-analysis to estimate the effect of OSS on PDR and ADR during colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the comparative effect of OSS versus PEG + ASC on the PDR and ADR during colonoscopy. Cecal intubation time (CIT), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and bowel preparation score were also evaluated. Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3.0 was used to perform statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 2059 patients fulfilled the selection criteria. Meta-analysis suggested that OSS significantly increased the PDR (47.34% vs. 40.14%, risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.24, P = 0.01) and ADR (44.60% vs. 38.14%, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.33, P = 0.01) during colonoscopy. Subgroup analysis showed that the beneficial effects of OSS on PDR and ADR were consistent among patients with mean age >55 years and with body mass index <25 kg/m² receiving outpatient colonoscopy, morning colonoscopy, and the 2-L bowel preparation protocol. Meanwhile, patients receiving OSS had a beneficial bowel preparation score.

CONCLUSION

Compared with polyethylene glycol-based regimens, the OSS bowel preparation regimen significantly increased the PDR and ADR in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Comparison of Two Types of 1-L Polyethylene Glycol-ascorbic Acid as Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Recently, 1-L polyethylene glycol-ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) has been used to reduce the volume of preparation agents in colonoscopy. This clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two types of 1-L PEG-Asc (CleanViewAL^® [Tae Joon Pharmaceutical Company, Seoul, Korea] and Plenvu^® [Norgine, Harefield, United Kingdom]) in average-aged adults.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 4 clinical trial. The primary endpoint was the efficacy evaluated using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), and the secondary endpoint was clinical safety.

RESULTS

In total, 173 patients were assigned to either the CleanViewAL^® (n=84) or Plenvu^® (n=89) group. Overall cleansing successes of 97.6% (82/84) and 98.8% (88/89) were achieved in the CleanViewAL^® group and in the Plenvu^® group, respectively, showing that CleanViewAL^® has similar bowel cleansing efficacy to Plenvu^® (95% CI, -0.052 to 0.027; p=0.207). The total BBPS score was 8.67±1.00 and 8.70±0.76 in the CleanViewAL^® group and Plenvu^® group, respectively (p=0.869). The most common adverse symptom was nausea, and no adverse symptoms requiring hospitalization were reported in either group. There were no cases of critical hypernatremia and liver dysfunction exceeding the common terminology criteria for adverse events grade I. An overall satisfaction score (scale of 1 to 10) showed no difference between the two groups (p=0.289). However, the CleanViewAL^® group showed a higher taste satisfaction score (scale of 1 to 5) than the Plenvu^® group (CleanViewAL^®: 2.90±0.91, Plenvu^®: 2.60±0.86, p=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Both types of 1-L PEG-Asc, CleanViewAL^® and Plenvu^®, are effective and safe bowel cleansing agents in average-aged adults. CleanViewAL^® was preferred in terms of taste satisfaction.

Comparison Between Same-Day and Split-Dose Preparations with Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate: A Randomized Noninferiority Study

BACKGROUND

Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) is a small-volume bowel cleansing agent with similar efficacy to and better tolerability than polyethylene glycol. However, we found no data on which SPMC preparation (same-day vs. split-dose) provides better bowel cleansing efficacy for afternoon colonoscopy.

AIMS

To compare bowel cleansing efficacy of different timing of the regimen.

METHODS

This randomized, single-center, endoscopist-blinded, noninferior study compared same-day and split-dose SPMC preparations for afternoon colonoscopy in 101 and 96 patients, respectively. We also included a prospective observation group of 100 patients receiving morning colonoscopy to compare bowel preparation between morning and afternoon colonoscopies. Bowel cleansing efficacy was then evaluated by the Aronchick Scale, Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and the Bubble Scale.

RESULTS

Same-day and split-dose preparations were similar in efficacy in all four scales. In the Aronchick Scale, the success rate (excellent and good cleanliness) was higher in same-day preparation than in split-dose preparation (100% vs. 92.8%). The same-day preparation also obtained a better OBPS score (1.4 vs. 2.1), but BBPS showed no difference between such groups (7.7 vs. 7.4).

CONCLUSION

Same-day preparation with SPMC is not inferior to split-dose preparation for afternoon colonoscopy.

Low-Volume Bowel Preparation Is Associated With Reduced Time to Colonoscopy in Hospitalized Patients: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Delays in inpatient colonoscopy are commonly caused by inadequate bowel preparation and result in increased hospital length of stay (LOS) and healthcare costs. Low-volume bowel preparation (LV-BP; sodium sulfate, potassium sulfate, and magnesium sulfate ) has been shown to improve outpatient bowel preparation quality compared with standard high-volume bowel preparations (HV-BP; polyethylene glycol ). However, its efficacy in hospitalized patients has not been well-studied. We assessed the impact of LV-BP on time to colonoscopy, hospital LOS, and bowel preparation quality among inpatients.

METHODS

We performed a propensity score-matched analysis of adult inpatients undergoing colonoscopy who received either LV-BP or HV-BP before colonoscopy at a quaternary academic medical center. Multivariate regression models with feature selection were developed to assess the association between LV-BP and study outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 1,807 inpatients included in this study, 293 and 1,514 patients received LV-BP and HV-BP, respectively. Among the propensity score-matched population, LV-BP was associated with a shorter time to colonoscopy (β: -0.43 [95% confidence interval: -0.56 to -0.30]) while having similar odds of adequate preparation (odds ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.71-1.46]; P = 0.92). LV-BP was also significantly associated with decreased hospital LOS among older patients (age ≥ 75 years), patients with chronic kidney disease, and patients who were hospitalized with gastrointestinal bleeding.

DISCUSSION

LV-BP is associated with decreased time to colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. Older inpatients, inpatients with chronic kidney disease, and inpatients with gastrointestinal bleeding may particularly benefit from LV-BP. Prospective studies are needed to further establish the role of LV-BP for inpatient colonoscopies.

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.

Bariatric Bypass Surgery Is a Risk Factor for Incomplete Colonoscopy Preparation

OBJECTIVES

Effective colon cancer screening requires adequate bowel preparation. Anecdotal evidence has suggested that patients with a history of bariatric surgery are more likely to have inadequate preparation. This study aims to evaluate the role of bariatric surgery as a predictive risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for consecutive colonoscopies between March 1, 2013, and November 15, 2017. Only the index colonoscopy for each patient within the review period, and those scored using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) were included. Inadequate preparation was defined as any one or more colon segments with a BBPS score of less than two, and patients with a history of bariatric surgery were identified using ICD 9/10 codes. Multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching was used to assess for independent factors predictive of inadequate bowel preparation.

RESULTS

A total of 25,318 colonoscopies were included in the analysis. Two hundred 278 (1.1%) patients had a history of bariatric surgery, among which 171 (61.5%) had a history of bypass surgery and 107 (38.5%) had a history of restrictive surgical procedure. A history of bariatric surgery was predictive of inadequate bowel preparation in both univariate (OR: 2.87, 95% CI: 1.92-4.29, P = 0.0003) and multivariate analysis (OR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.43-3.27, P = 0.0003) after controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. When evaluated separately, a history of bypass surgery was associated with inadequate bowel preparation (aOR: 2.96, 95% CI: 1.86-4.72, P < 0.0001), whereas a history of a restrictive bariatric surgery was not associated with inadequate bowel preparation in multivariate analysis (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.4-2.45, P = 0.971).

CONCLUSIONS

A history of bariatric surgery is an independent risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation. Furthermore, bypass bariatric surgeries had higher rates of inadequate preparation when compared to restrictive bariatric surgeries. Further quality improvement initiatives should be directed at identifying the appropriate bowel preparation regimen in this population.

Efficacy and tolerability of a low-residue diet for bowel preparation: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) contributes significantly to cancer mortality worldwide. In an effort to reduce the risk of death, detection of polyps through colonoscopy is crucial. The success of the colonoscopy depends on the diet administered the day before the test. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and adverse effects of bowel preparation when using a low-residual diet (LRD) compared to a clear-liquid diet (CLD) the day before a scheduled colonoscopy.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Scopus databases were searched. We included studies of patients undergoing a scheduled colonoscopy for CRC screening and surveillance or for diagnostic purposes that compared a LRD with a CLD the day before the colonoscopy. Efficacy, the primary outcome, was evaluated as the rate of adequate bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes were tolerability and adverse effects of bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs (N = 2587) were included. Patients receiving a LRD compared to a CLD showed no difference in adequate bowel preparations (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.99-1.05; I² = 60%). However, the LRD improved patient tolerability (RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.12-1.23; I² = 66%) and had fewer adverse effects (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.84-0.94; I² = 73%) compared to the CLD. Groups using a LRD with 4L of polyethylene glycol in a single dose or a LRD with < 2000 kcal < 32 g of fibres/day had better tolerability.

CONCLUSION

Based on these findings, our recommendation is strong in favour of a LRD for bowel preparation of patients undergoing a scheduled colonoscopy. This diet could also be useful as a preoperative colonic preparation, but this requires further research.

Single-Day Low-Residue Diet Prior to Colonoscopy Demonstrates Improved Bowel Preparation Quality and Patient Tolerance over Clear Liquid Diet: A Randomized, Single-Blinded, Dual-Center Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients often refer to bowel preparation and associated dietary restrictions as the greatest deterrents to having a colonoscopy completed or performed. Large studies comparing a low-residue diet (LRD) and a clear liquid diet (CLD) are still limited. The aim of this study is to compare LRD and CLD with regard to bowel preparation quality, tolerance, and satisfaction among a diverse patient population.

METHODS

This study is a dual-center, randomized, single-blinded, prospective trial involving adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at the University of California Irvine Medical Center and an affiliated Veterans Administration hospital. Patients were randomized to consume either a CLD or a planned LRD for the full day prior to colonoscopy. Both groups consumed 4L split-dosed PEG-ELS. The adequacy of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS). Adequate preparation was defined as a BBPS ≥ 6 with no individual segment less than a score of 2. Hunger and fatigue pre - and post-procedure were graded on a ten-point scale. Nausea, vomiting, bloating, abdominal cramping, overall discomfort, satisfaction with the diet, willingness to repeat the same preparation and overall experience were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 195 subjects who underwent colonoscopy from October 2014 to October 2017 were included. The mean BBPS for the LRD and CLD groups was 8.38 and 7.93, respectively (p = 0.1). There was a significantly higher number of adequate preparations in the LRD group compared to CLD (p = 0.05). Evening hunger scores just before starting the bowel preparation were significantly lower in the LRD than the CLD group, 2.81 versus 5.97, respectively (p = 0.006). Subjects in the LRD group showed significantly less nausea (p = 0.047) and bloating (p = 0.04). Symptom scores for vomiting, abdominal cramping, and overall discomfort were similar between the groups. Satisfaction with diet was significantly higher in the LRD group than CLD, 72% versus 37.66%, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall colonoscopy experience and the satisfaction with the preparation itself were also better reported in the LRD group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study, which included a diverse group of patients, demonstrated that patients using a LRD before colonoscopy achieve a bowel preparation quality that is superior to patients on a CLD restriction. This study shows that a low-residue diet improves patient satisfaction and results in significantly better tolerability of bowel preparation. As a less restrictive dietary regimen, the low-residue diet may help improve patient participation in colorectal cancer screening programs.

Continuous ADR50 monitoring through automated linkage between endoscopy and pathology: a quality improvement initiative in a Brussels public hospital

Background and study aim: Adenoma detection rate in patients aged 50 years or older (ADR50) is considered by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) a key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Technical and human resources constrain implementation of recording quality monitoring. The aim was to deploy an infrastructure for continuous monitoring of endoscopy quality indicators. And to evaluate its potential benefit on quality performance. Methods: A company reporting system was adapted by adding a dedicated tab for quality monitoring, including: preparation, progression, number of resected polyps. Automated linkage with the pathology database resulted in continuous monitoring of inter alia: rate of adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate and ADR50. Continuous monitoring was done for all nine endoscopists working at our center, with individual feedback after 4, 9 and 28 months. Results: A total of 1434 colonoscopies were performed during the first 9 months of monitoring, 682 during the first 4 months, 752 during the following 5 months. Five months after feedback a global increase in ADR50 of 4.6% (22.9% to 27.5%) (P<0.05) was observed, compared to the first 4 months. Thus meeting the benchmark (≥25%) recommended by ESGE. A durable effect of monitoring and feedback was observed after 28 months (ADR50: 29.4%). Conclusions: An easy to use infrastructure for registration of quality monitoring in daily endoscopy practice, automatically linking the pathology database, facilitates continuous monitoring of endoscopy quality indicators. A global and durable ADR50 increase was observed after feedback, considered a quality improvement in performance of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy at our center.

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy After Failed Bowel Preparation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Failed bowel preparation for colonoscopy occurs commonly, but the optimal regimen for the subsequent attempt is unknown. High-volume preparations often are used but are not well studied. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 2 regimens for use after failed bowel preparation.

METHODS

A multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients who previously failed bowel preparation despite adequate compliance. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 split polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens, preceded by 15 mg bisacodyl: PEG 2 L the evening before and 2 L the day of colonoscopy (PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl), or 4 L and 2 L (PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl). All patients followed a low-fiber diet on both the third and second day before the procedure, followed by a clear fluid diet the day before and the morning of the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score of 6 or higher, with all segment scores of 2 or higher. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated lesion detection, cecal intubation rate, tolerability, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 196 subjects were randomized at 4 academic centers in Canada (mean age, 60.7 y; SD, 11.4 y; 44.9% were women). There were no significant differences between the PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl and the PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl groups in achieving adequate bowel preparation (91.2% vs 87.6%; P = .44). There were no significant differences with regard to mean adenoma detection rate (37.4% vs 31.5%; P = .41), advanced adenoma detection rate (18.7% vs 11.2%; P = .16), sessile serrated lesion detection (8.8% vs 5.6%; P = .41), and cecal intubation rate (96.7% vs 92.1%; P = .19). The 2 regimens were similarly well tolerated, but PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl was associated with a higher willingness to repeat the bowel preparation (91.2% vs 66.2%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Split-dose 4 L-PEG with 15 mg bisacodyl, along with dietary restrictions, has similar efficacy as a higher-volume preparation, and should be considered for patients who previously failed bowel preparation (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02976805).