Patient acceptance, convenience, and efficacy of single-dose versus split-dose colonoscopy bowel preparation

Online Educational Module Improves Knowledge of Nurses on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

The effectiveness of colonoscopy is limited by the adequacy of bowel preparation. Nurses are essential in providing bowel cleansing agents and instructions for hospitalized patients before colonoscopy. This study aims to assess and improve the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy. Participants were asked to complete the survey before and after completing an educational module. The module and survey questions were placed in the NetLearning environment of the hospital intranet. A minimum post-test score of 80% was required to pass the course. A total of 1,107 nurses participated in the survey. Overall, the average score improved from 87% to 93% after the module (p < .0495). Knowledge of the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents improved from 54.3% to 83.6% (p = .0001). Only 56.2% of nurses knew how to carry out a split-dose bowel preparation regimen, which increased to 80.1% after the educational module (p = .0001). Nurses' knowledge about the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents before colonoscopy and the split-dose regimen is inadequate. A simple online educational module significantly improved the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

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

Background and Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

Objective

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

Design

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Optimal Bowel Cleansing for Colonoscopy in the Elderly Patient

Colonoscopy is an important diagnostic and screening tool for colorectal cancer detection and prevention, and adequate bowel preparation is critical for successful colonoscopy. Complications related to colonoscopy, either directly or indirectly related to the procedure, are increased in elderly patients, and the risks and benefits of colonoscopy procedures need to be carefully considered in these patients. Recent studies have shown that 4 L polyethylene glycol with a split preparation is safe and effective for elderly patients, and is the preferred preparation for patients with medical comorbidities. Preparations containing sodium phosphate are generally not recommended for the elderly because of increased renal complications. In addition, a low-residue diet may aid in tolerance and willingness to undergo the procedure compared with a clear liquid diet, with comparable bowel preparation adequacy. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparations include poor adherence to split preparation instructions or volume of solution ingested, and certain patient-related medications and comorbidities, such as diabetes, elevated body mass index, and antidepressant or narcotic use. Methods for achieving safe and adequate bowel preparations in the elderly include clear instructions, reminder calls, and case management for potential confounding patient-related factors.

Systematic Review: Outcomes by Duration of NPO Status prior to Colonoscopy

Background/Aims

Variation exists among anesthesia providers as to acceptable timing of NPO (“nothing by mouth”) for elective colonoscopy procedures. There is a need to balance optimal colonic preparation, patient convenience, and scheduling efficiency with anesthesia safety concerns. We reviewed the evidence for the relationship between NPO timing and aspiration incidence and colonoscopy rescheduling.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (1990–April 2015) for English language studies of any design and included them if at least one bowel preparation regimen was completed within 8 hours of colonoscopy. Study characteristics, patient characteristics, and outcomes were abstracted and verified by investigators. We determined risk of bias for each study and overall strength of evidence for primary and secondary outcomes.

Results

We included 28 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 controlled clinical trials, and 10 observational reports. Six studies reported on aspiration; none found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk, though studies were not designed to assess this outcome (low strength of evidence). One RCT found fewer rescheduled procedures following split-dose preparation but NPO status was not well-documented (insufficient evidence).

Conclusions

Aspiration incidence requiring hospitalization during colonoscopy with moderate or deep sedation is very low. No study found that shorter NPO status prior to colonoscopy increased aspiration risk. We did not find direct evidence of the effect of NPO status on colonoscopy rescheduling.

Impact of Single- vs. Split-Dose Low-Volume Bowel Preparations on Bowel Movement Kinetics, Patient Inconvenience, and Polyp Detection: A Prospective Trial

OBJECTIVES

There are little data on bowel movement (BM) kinetics induced by bowel preparation. Whether single-dose (SID) or split-dose (SPD) regimens differ in terms of patient convenience is unclear. We compared BM kinetics, sleep and travel disruptions, and polyp detection rates in patients undergoing colonoscopy assigned to SID vs. SPDs.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to 2-L SID or SPD (SPD1 and SPD2) bowel preparations. Surveys were completed querying the onset, duration, cessation, and intensity of BMs, along with sleep and travel disruption en route to the endoscopy center. Colon cleansing quality and polyp histology were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 341 patients were enrolled, 51% in SPD and 49% in SID. Over half of patients had their first BM within 60 min of starting the preparation. After dosing, 92% of SID and 66% of SPD1 patients achieved clear effluent (P<0.001), whereas it was reported in 97% of SPD2 patients (P=0.028 vs. SID). Total duration (P=0.041) and intensity (P<0.001) of BMs were greater in SID. More patients in SID woke up for BMs (65.9 vs. 48.8%, P<0.003). No differences in the need to stop driving en route to colonoscopy were noted. Bowel prep quality was better in SPD (P<0.001). Although no difference in the adenoma detection rate was noted, the sessile-serrated polyp detection rate was greater in SPD than in SID (9.9 vs. 2.4%, P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate that SPD bowel preparation results in decreased intensity and duration of BMs, less patient inconvenience, improved bowel preparation, and increased sessile-serrated polyp detection rates.

Colorectal cancer screening

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

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

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

Optimal bowel preparation--a practical guide for clinicians

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

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

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

Advances in bowel preparations: new formulation and clinical results

Adequate cleansing is essential for a thorough and accurate examination of the bowel during colonoscopy. Suboptimal preparation can lead to missed diagnoses, increased costs, and safety issues. Favorable bowel preparations are efficacious, safe, and cause as little patient discomfort as possible by limiting fluid volume, intolerance, and inconvenience. Split-dose (2-day) regimens address these concerns and are associated with better cleansing and higher patient satisfaction than with single-dose regimens. Nurses can play a key role in communicating the benefits of various bowel preparation options, including split dosing, to patients.A low-volume oral sulfate solution given as a split-dose regimen has been tested in randomized clinical trials and found to provide similar bowel cleaning to split-dose polyethylene glycol with electrolytes and ascorbic acid (PEG-EA). Superior cleaning was found when compared with single-dose polyethylene glycol with electrolytes (PEG-ELS), particularly in the cecum and ascending colon. With the exception of clinically insignificant changes in electrolytes, tolerability and safety were similar between patients taking oral sulfate solution and patients taking PEG-EA or PEG-ELS. Oral sulfate solution is a safe and effective low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTION

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATION

This was a single-center, nonrandomized trial.

CONCLUSIONS

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