The safety and effectiveness of 2-liter polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid in patients with liver cirrhosis: A retrospective observational study

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.

Comparison of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid and 4 L Polyethylene Glycol in Elderly Patients Aged 60-79: A Prospective Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

The bowel-cleansing efficacy and safety of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (2L PEG + Asc) has rarely been studied in the elderly population. In this randomized trial, we compared the bowel cleanliness, safety, and tolerability of 2L PEG + Asc with those of 4 L PEG in an elderly population aged 60-79.

METHODS

Study participants were randomized either to 2L PEG + Asc or 4L PEG. The primary endpoint was the success rate of bowel preparation, using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Before colonoscopy, all participants were questioned about adverse events and tolerability regarding purgative ingestion.

RESULTS

A total of 347 individuals were enrolled (2L PEG + Asc, 174; 4L PEG, 173). Mean age in the 2L PEG + Asc and the 4L PEG was 69.3 ± 5.6 and 69.3 ± 5.0, respectively (P = 0.917). The rate for successful bowel cleansing was comparable between the 2L PEG + Asc (92%) and the 4L PEG (96%, P = 0.118). Total ingested liquid including purgative and water was lower in the 2L PEG + Asc group (2.9 L) than in the 4L PEG group (4.2 L, P < 0.001). The tolerability of purgative was superior in the 2L PEG + Asc (overall satisfaction, P < 0.001; willingness to reuse, P < 0.001). There were no serious adverse events during the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The bowel-cleansing efficacy of 2L PEG + Asc was comparable to that of 4L PEG. Tolerability was superior in the 2L PEG + Asc group. For older people, 2L PEG + Asc is an efficacious and safe bowel cleanser. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0004123).

Evidence-based considerations on bowel preparation for colonoscopy

We recently read with interest the article, "Novel frontiers of agents for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy". This is a practical narrative review, which could be of particular importance to clinicians in order to improve their current practice. Although we appreciate the venture of our colleagues, based on our in-depth analysis, we came across several minor issues in the article; hence, we present our comments in this letter. If the authors consider these comments further in their relevant research, we believe that their contribution would be of considerable importance for future studies.