Comparison of two bowel preparations for colonoscopy: sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate versus sulphate-free polyethylene glycol lavage solution

Cleansing efficacy and safety of bowel preparation protocol using sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate considering subjective experiences: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Research data from patient reports indicate that the least bearable part of colonoscopy is the administration of laxatives for bowel preparation.

AIM

To observe the intestinal cleansing efficacy and safety of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate and to discuss the patients’ experiences due to the procedure.

METHODS

Subjects hospitalized in the International Medical Center Ward of Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China, from April 29 to October 29, 2020, for whom the colonoscopy was planned, were enrolled. Bowel preparation was performed using sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate. The effect of bowel cleansing was evaluated according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale, defecation conditions and adverse reactions were recorded, and the comfort level and subjective satisfaction concerning medication were evaluated by the visual analogue scale/score (VAS).

RESULTS

The bowel preparation procedure was planned for all patients enrolled, which included 42 males and 22 females. The results showed an average liquid rehydration volume of 3000 mL, an average onset of action for the first dose at 89.04 min, an average number of bowel movements of 4.3 following the first dose, an average onset of action for the second dose at 38.90 min and an average number of bowel movements of 5.0 after the second dose. The total average Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale score was 3.6, with 93.55% of bowel preparations in the “qualified” and 67.74% in the “excellent” grade. The average VAS score of effect on sleep was 0, and the average VAS score of perianal pain was also 0. The average VAS score for ease of taking and taste perception of the bowel cleanser was 10. Side effects included mild to moderate nausea (15.63%), mild vomiting (4.69%), mild to moderate abdominal pain (7.81%), mild to moderate abdominal distension (20.31%), mild palpitation (7.81%) and mild dizziness (4.69%).

CONCLUSION

Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate is effective and safe for bowel preparation before colonoscopy with high subjective patient acceptance, thus improving overall patient compliance.

The use of an implemented infection prevention bundle reduces the incidence of surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: a retrospective single center analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical-site infections (SSIs) represent the most common complications after colorectal surgery (CS). Role of preoperative administration of oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), alone or in combination, in the prevention of SSIs after CS is debated. Aim of this study was to assess the effect of the introduction of an Implemented Infection Prevention Bundle (IIPB) in preventing SSIs in CS.

METHODS

A group of 251 patients (Group 1) who underwent CS receiving only preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) was compared to a Group of 107 patients (Group 2) who also received the IIPB. The IIPB consisted of the combination of oral administrations of three doses of Rifaximin 400 mg and MBP the day before surgery and in the administration of a cleansing enema the day of the surgical procedure.

RESULTS

At the univariate analysis, Group 2 showed significant lower rates of wound infection (WI) (2.8% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.021) and anastomotic leakage (AL) (2.8% vs. 14.7%; p = 0.001) with shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; p < 0.0001). The probability of postoperative AL was lower in Group 2; patients in this Group resulted protected from AL; a statistically significant Odds ratio of 0.16 (CI 0.05-0.55 p = 0.0034) was found. In diabetic patients, that were at higher risk of WI (OR 3.53, CI 1.49-8.35 p = 0.002), despite having any impact on anastomotic dehiscence, the use of IIPB significantly reduced the rate of WI (0% vs 28.1%; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The use of an IIPB significantly reduces rates of SSIs and post-operative hospital stay after CS.

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

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

Sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol before elective colonoscopy in outpatients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To determine the best option for bowel preparation [sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol (PEG)] for elective colonoscopy in adult outpatients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines was performed using Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Central, Cinahl and Lilacs. No restrictions were placed for country, year of publication or language. The last search in the literature was performed on November 20^th, 2017. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. The subjects included were adult outpatients who underwent bowel cleansing for elective colonoscopy. The included studies compared sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) and PEG for bowel preparation. Exclusion criteria were the inclusion of inpatients or groups with specific conditions, failure to mention patient status (outpatient or inpatient) or dietary restrictions, and permission to have unrestricted diet on the day prior to the exam. Primary outcomes were bowel cleaning success and/or tolerability of colon preparation. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, polyp and adenoma detection rates. Data on intention-to-treat were extracted by two independent authors and risk of bias assessed through the Jadad scale. Funnel plots, Egger’s test, Higgins’ test (I²) and sensitivity analyses were used to assess reporting bias and heterogeneity. The meta-analysis was performed by computing risk difference (RD) using Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with fixed-effects (FE) and random-effects (RE) models. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) version 6.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration) was the software chosen to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

662 records were identified but only 16 trials with 6200 subjects were included for the meta-analysis. High heterogeneity among studies was found and sensitivity analysis was needed and performed to interpret data. In the pooled analysis, SPMC was better for bowel cleaning [MH FE, RD 0.03, IC (0.01, 0.05), P = 0.003, I² = 33%, NNT 34], for tolerability [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.03, 0.13), P = 0.002, I² = 88%, NNT 13] and for adverse events [MH RE, RD 0.13, IC (0.05, 0.22), P = 0.002, I² = 88%, NNT 7]. There was no difference in regard to polyp and adenoma detection rates. Additional analyses were made by subgroups (type of regimen, volume of PEG solution and dietary recommendations). SPMC demonstrated better tolerability levels when compared to PEG in the following subgroups: “day-before preparation” [MH FE, RD 0.17, IC (0.13, 0.21), P < 0.0001, I² = 0%, NNT 6], “preparation in accordance with time interval for colonoscopy” [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.15), P = 0.02, I² = 54%, NNT 13], when compared to “high-volume PEG solutions” [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.14), I² = 89%, P = 0.02, NNT 13] and in the subgroup “liquid diet on day before” [MH RE, RD 0.14, IC (0.06,0.22), P = 0.0006, I² = 81%, NNT 8]. SPMC was also found to cause fewer adverse events than PEG in the “high-volume PEG solutions” [MH RE, RD -0.18, IC (-0.30, -0.07), P = 0.002, I² = 79%, NNT 6] and PEG in the “low-residue diet” subgroup [MH RE, RD -0.17, IC (-0.27, 0.07), P = 0.0008, I² = 86%, NNT 6].

CONCLUSION

SPMC seems to be better than PEG for bowel preparation, with a similar bowel cleaning success rate, better tolerability and lower prevalence of adverse events.

Efficacy and Safety of Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate for Bowel Preparation in a Physically Disabled Outpatient Population: A Randomized, Endoscopist-Blinded Comparison With Ascorbic Acid-Enriched Polyethylene Glycol Solution Plus Bisacodyl (The PICO-MOVI Study)

BACKGROUND

Because of its volume, adequate bowel preparation remains problematic in physically unfit patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare a small-volume sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate preparation with a 2-L ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl.

DESIGN

This study has a noninferiority design, assuming that ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl is 70% efficacious in achieving an Ottawa score ≤7 and accepting a difference in success rate of <15% with a target enrollment of 146 patients per group.

SETTING

This study was conducted in an outpatient department.

PATIENTS

Patients referred for diagnostic colonoscopy were randomly assigned. Key exclusion criteria were severe kidney disease, ASA class ≥III, and hospital admission.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned to receive sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate or ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl according to a split-dose regimen. Patients in the sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate group received advice on the recommended 4-L fluid intake. Patients in the ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl group received 2 bisacodyl tablets 2 days before and advice on the additionally recommended 2-L fluid intake.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

To assess bowel-cleansing adequacy, the Ottawa, Aronchick, and Boston scores were used. Colonoscopy quality measures were obtained. Safety was assessed for a 30-day follow-up period.

RESULTS

Overall, 341 patients (169 men, mean age 57.0 years; BMI 26.2 kg/m) were included. Comorbidities were present in 76.2% of patients, and 75.4% of patients used medication. An adequate Ottawa score was obtained in 81.4% and 75.8% of patients receiving ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (difference of 5.6% (95% CI, -3.5 to -14.6; p = 0.023)), showing noninferiority of the sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate therapy. Ottawa segmental scores were lower for sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate in the right and transverse colon. In both groups, successful ileocecal intubation was achieved in 95%. No medication-related adverse events were reported.

LIMITATIONS

These results in a physically disabled ambulant population cannot be extrapolated to immobile, hospitalized patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate proved to be noninferior to ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl in efficacy and safety. Timing of the colonoscopy and addition of bisacodyl to sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate warrants further consideration. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A461.

White Diet with split-dose Picosalax is preferred, better tolerated, and non-inferior to day-before clear fluids with polyethylene glycol plus sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate for morning colonoscopy: A randomized, non-inferiority trial

Background and Aim

Bowel preparations with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and clear fluids are often poorly tolerated. We compared an innovative low‐residue White Diet and low‐volume, split‐dose Picosalax with the standard preparation at our institution of day‐before clear fluids and combination PEG plus sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC).

Methods

Adults undergoing morning colonoscopy were randomized to either the White Diet and split‐dose, two sachets of Picosalax (WD/PICO) or day‐before clear fluids and 1‐L PEG plus two sachets of SPMC (CF/PEG + SPMC). The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation defined by an Ottawa bowel preparation score ≤ 6. An intention‐to‐treat analysis with a predefined non‐inferiority margin of 15% was used to compare efficacy.

Results

A total of 250 patients were randomized (125 WD/PICO and 125 CF/PEG + SPMC). WD/PICO was non‐inferior to CF/PEG + SPMC for successful bowel preparation by intention‐to‐treat analysis (58% WD/PICO vs 62% CF/PEG + SPMC, 95%CI: −14.2 to 6.2%) and per‐protocol analysis (64% WD/PICO vs 65% CF/PEG + SPMC, 95%CI: −11.3 to 9.4%). Patients in the WD/PICO group reported greater satisfaction with the diet (P < 0.001), greater ease of following the diet (P < 0.001), and improved experience compared with prior colonoscopy (P < 0.0001), less bloating (P = 0.02), less weakness (P = 0.046), less hunger (P < 0.0001), and less interference with daily activities (P = 0.001). Procedure/withdrawal times and adenoma detection rates were similar between groups.

Conclusion

Bowel preparation with the White Diet and low‐volume, split‐dose Picosalax was preferred and better tolerated without detriment to bowel preparation success compared with clear fluids and combination PEG plus SPMC for morning colonoscopy.

Randomized clinical trial comparing fixed-time split dosing and split dosing of oral Picosulfate regimen for bowel preparation

AIM

To compare the efficacy of fixed-time split dose and split dose of an oral sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation.

METHODS

This is study was prospective, randomized controlled study performed at a single Institution (2013-058). A total of 204 subjects were assigned to receive one of two sodium picosulfate regimens (i.e., fixed-time split or split) prior to colonoscopy. Main outcome measurements were bowel preparation quality and subject tolerability.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference between the fixed-time split dose regimen group and the split dose regimen group (Ottawa score mean 2.57 ± 1.91 vs 2.80 ± 2.51, P = 0.457). Cecal intubation time and physician’s satisfaction of inspection were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.428, P = 0.489). On subgroup analysis, for afternoon procedures, the fixed-time split dose regimen was equally effective as compared with the split dose regimen (Ottawa score mean 2.56 ± 1.78 vs 2.59 ± 2.27, P = 0.932). There was no difference in tolerability or compliance between the two groups. Nausea was 21.2% in the fixed-time split dose group and 14.3% in the split dose group (P = 0.136). Vomiting was 7.1% and 2.9% (P = 0.164), abdominal discomfort 7.1% and 4.8% (P = 0.484), dizziness 1% and 4.8% (P = 0.113), cold sweating 1% and 0% (P = 0.302) and palpitation 0% and 1% (P = 0.330), respectively. Sleep disturbance was two (2%) patients in the fixed-time split dose group and zero (0%) patient in the split dose preparation (P = 0.143) group.

CONCLUSION

A fixed-time split dose regimen with sodium picosulfate is not inferior to a split dose regimen for bowel preparation and equally effective for afternoon colonoscopy.

Sodium Picosulfate with Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Plus Laxative Is a Good Alternative to Conventional Large Volume Polyethylene Glycol in Bowel Preparation: A Multicenter Randomized Single-Blinded Trial

Background/Aims

We investigated whether sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) plus bisacodyl compares favorably with conventional polyethylene glycol (PEG) with respect to bowel cleansing adequacy, compliance, and safety.

Methods

We performed a multicenter, prospective, single-blinded study in outpatients undergoing daytime colonoscopies. Patients were randomized into a split preparation SPMC/bisacodyl group and a conventional split PEG group. We compared preparation adequacy using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), ease of use using a modified Likert scale (LS), compliance/satisfaction level using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and safety by monitoring adverse events during the colonoscopy between the two groups.

Results

A total of 365 patients were evaluated by intention to treat (ITT) analysis, and 319 were evaluated by per protocol (PP) population analysis (153 for SPMC/bisacodyl, 166 for PEG). The mean total BBPS score was not different between the two groups in both the ITT and PP analyses (p>0.05). The mean VAS score for satisfaction and LS score for the ease of use were higher in the SPMC/bisacodyl group (p<0.001). The adverse event rate was lower in the SPMC/bisacodyl group than in the PEG group (p<0.05).

Conclusions

The SPMC/bisacodyl treatment was comparable to conventional PEG with respect to bowel preparation adequacy and superior with respect to compliance, satisfaction, and safety.

Split-dose sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate colonoscopy preparation achieves lower residual gastric volume with higher cleansing effectiveness than a previous-day regimen

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

It is known that sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate (SPMC) bowel preparations are effective, well tolerated and safe, and that split-dosing is more effective for colon cleansing than previous-day regimens. Anesthetic guidelines consider that residual gastric fluid is independent of clear liquid fasting times. However, reluctance to use split-dosing persists. This may be due to limited data on residual gastric fluid volumes (RGFVs) and split-dosing bowel preparations, and that these may not be perceived as standard clear liquids. Furthermore, no studies are available on RGFV/residual gastric fluid pH (RGFpH) and SPMC. We aimed to evaluate the cleansing effectiveness and the RGFV/RGFpH achieved after an SPMC split-dosing regimen compared with a SPMC previous-day regimen.

METHODS

This was a single-center observational study. A total of 328 outpatients scheduled for simultaneous EGD and colonoscopy and following a split-dosing or previous-day regimen of SPMC were included. We prospectively measured colon cleanliness by using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale, RGFV, and RGFpH.

RESULTS

Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale scores for overall, right, mid-colon, and colon fluid were significantly better in the split-dosing group. In the split-dosing group, the 3- to 4-hour fasting time consistently achieved the best cleansing quality. RGFV was significantly lower in the split-dosing group (11.09 vs 18.62, P < .001). No significant differences in RGFpH were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Split-dosing SPMC provides higher colon cleansing quality with lower RGFVs than previous-day SPMC regimens. SPMC in split-dosing acts exactly as a standard clear liquid acts, and thus anesthetic guidelines on this issue may be applied with no concerns.

Does Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Plus Ascorbic Acid Induce More Mucosal Injuries than Split-Dose 4-L PEG during Bowel Preparation?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The aims of this study were to compare the bowel-cleansing efficacy, patient affinity for the preparation solution, and mucosal injury between a split dose of polyethylene glycol (SD-PEG) and low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid (LV-PEG+Asc) in outpatient scheduled colonoscopies.

METHODS

Of the 319 patients, 160 were enrolled for SDPEG, and 159 for LV-PEG+Asc. The bowel-cleansing efficacy was rated according to the Ottawa bowel preparation scale. Patient affinity for the preparation solution was assessed using a questionnaire. All mucosal injuries observed during colonoscopy were biopsied and histopathologically reviewed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in bowel cleansing between the groups. The LV-PEG+Asc group reported better patient acceptance and preference. There were no significant differences in the incidence or characteristics of the mucosal injuries between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with SD-PEG, LV-PEG+Asc exhibited equivalent bowel-cleansing efficacy and resulted in improved patient acceptance and preference. There was no significant difference in mucosal injury between SD-PEG and LV-PEG+Asc. Thus, the LV-PEG+Asc preparation could be used more effectively and easily for routine colonoscopies without risking significant mucosal injury.

Phase II Randomized Controlled Trial of Combined Oral laxatives Medication for BOwel PREParation (COMBO-PREP study)

The combination of different laxatives at reduced volumes may benefit patients by enhancing efficacy for bowel cleansing and increasing tolerability. However, evidence regarding combined preparations is scarce. This study evaluated whether the combined preparations are associated with enhanced efficacy and tolerability. This randomized phase II study had a single-blind, parallel-arm design. Between December 2013 and September 2014, consecutive patients aged between 20 and 65 years and who required diagnostic colonoscopies were considered for inclusion. Patients were randomly allocated into 4 arms: sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate (PMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid in a day-prior (PMC-PEG-DP), PMC and oral sodium phosphate (NaP) in a day-prior (PMC-NaP-DP), PMC and PEG with ascorbic acid in a split-dose (PMC-PEG-SD), and PMC and oral NaP in a split-dose (PMC-NaP-SD). Primary endpoint was the Aronchick scale, and Ottawa scale results by colon segment, patients' adverse gastrointestinal symptoms, and willingness to reuse the same agents were also recorded. Successful bowel preparation was defined as an "excellent" or "good" score on the Aronchick scale. A total of 236 patients were randomized and 229 patients received the planned colonoscopy. The rates of successful bowel preparation in the PMC-PEG-DP, PMC-NaP-DP, PMC-PEG-SD, and PMC-NaP-SD were 82.5%, 64.4%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Excluding the failed PMC-NaP-DP group, all groups showed satisfactory rates of successful bowel preparation, and the mean Ottawa scores were significantly better in the PMC-PEG-SD and PMC-NaP-SD groups than in the PMC-PEG-DP group (P < 0.0001). The PMC-PEG-DP, PMC-NaP-DP, PMC-PEG-SD, and PMC-NaP-SD groups were similar in terms of rates of adverse gastrointestinal symptoms reported on a 5-point scale (P = 0.40) and willingness to reuse the same combined preparations (P = 0.55). PMC-PEG in a day-prior or split-dose and PMC-NaP in a split-dose were efficient and tolerable bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies comparing sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) drew inconsistent conclusions. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of the two agents for colonoscopy preparation.

METHODS

A search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2015 was acquired, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. We calculated the pooled estimates of bowel cleanliness, polyp/adenoma detection rate (PDR/ADR), completion of preparation, willingness to repeat identical bowel preparation, and adverse events by using relative risk (RR) with random-effects models. A non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing SPMC to PEG for bowel cleaning efficacy.

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs were qualified for analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the two agents in bowel cleanliness, but the effect direction showed a trend in favor of PEG (RR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.86-1.01, P = 0.07). The non-inferiority analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of SPMC by retaining at least 90 % of the effect of PEG. Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two agents in PDR (RR 0.94; 95 % CI 0.82-1.08, P = 0.37) and ADR (RR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.74-1.05, P = 0.16). However, a higher proportion of patients were likely to complete SPMC preparation (RR 1.08; 95 % CI 1.04-1.13, P < 0.001) and were willing to repeat SPMC preparation (RR 1.44; 95 % CI 1.25-1.67, P < 0.001). The total number of adverse events was significantly lower in the SPMC group (RR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.66-0.93, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

SPMC, with better tolerability and less frequent adverse events, demonstrated non-inferior bowel cleaning efficacy than that of the PEG. Large-scale, well-organized, head-to-head studies are warranted.

Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Is Superior to Single Dose for Colonoscopy Preparation: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background. The efficacy of colonoscopy in detecting abnormalities within the colon is highly dependent on the adequacy of the bowel preparation. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of PEG lavage and split-dose PEG lavage with specific emphasis on the cleanliness of the right colon. Methods. The study was a prospective, randomized, two-arm, controlled trial of 237 patients. Patients between the age of 50 and 75 years were referred to an outpatient university screening clinic for colonoscopy. Patients were allocated to receive either a single 4 L PEG lavage or a split-dose PEG lavage. Results. Overall, the bowel preparation was superior in the split-dose group compared with the single-dose group (mean Ottawa score 3.50 ± 2.89 versus 5.96 ± 3.53; P < 0.05) and resulted in less overall fluid in the colon. This effect was observed across all segments of the colon assessed. Conclusions. The current study supports use of a split-dose PEG lavage over a single large volume lavage for superior bowel cleanliness, which may improve polyp detection. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01610856.

Randomized controlled trial of low-volume bowel preparation agents for colonic bowel preparation: 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate

PURPOSE

Both 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (2-L PEG/Asc) and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SP/MC) are low-volume combined agents for colonic preparation. The aim of the current study was to compare the preparation adequacy and patient tolerability of 2-L PEG/Asc and SP/MC.

METHODS

We performed a prospective randomized controlled study in outpatients undergoing daytime colonoscopy at a tertiary academic hospital. We compared preparation adequacy based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR), compliance, tolerability for ease and palatability, intention to reuse, and patient satisfaction using a questionnaire between 2-L PEG/Asc and three sachets of SP/MC, both given in a split-dose method.

RESULTS

A total of 388 patients were evaluated based on intention to treat (ITT) and 356 patients per protocol (PP). No significant differences in preparation adequacy were observed in ITT and PP analyses, based on the BBPS (p > 0.05). The PDR and ADR were greater than 60 and 40% in both groups, respectively (p > 0.05). Compliance levels were higher in the 2-L PEG/Asc group than in the SP/MC group (p < 0.001). Satisfaction (ITT, p = 0.014; PP, p = 0.032) and palatability (ITT and PP, p < 0.001) levels were higher in the SP/MC group than in the 2-L PEG/Asc group, but values for tolerability for ease and intention to reuse were similar in both groups (ITT and PP, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both 2-L PEG/Asc and SP/MC had adequate bowel cleansing efficacy to satisfy PDR and ADR as quality indicator and had showed similar tolerability.

'Pico-Bello-Klean study': effectiveness and patient tolerability of bowel preparation agents sodium picosulphate-magnesium citrate and polyethylene glycol before colonoscopy. A single-blinded randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

Adequate bowel preparation is an important step for an effective colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol solution (Kleanprep) and sodium picosulphate with a magnesium citrate solution (Picoprep) are bowel cleansing agents registered and available for this purpose. So far, the results of studies comparing the effectiveness of bowel cleansing between the two agents are inconclusive. This may be because of differences in administration regimes and subjective measurement of bowel cleansing.In this single-blinded randomized-controlled trial, the effectiveness of Kleanprep and Picoprep was examined using a split-dose regimen and an objective bowel cleansing score system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and seventy-three consecutive patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy were included, the required number based on power analysis. Eighty-eight patients received Kleanprep; 85 received Picoprep. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of bowel cleansing using the Boston Bowel Preparation Score. The secondary outcome was patient tolerability measured using a questionnaire. An intention-to-treat-analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

The overall Boston Bowel Preparation Score between Kleanprep and Picoprep was not significantly different (P=0.182). On reviewing segment scores, there were also no significant differences between Kleanprep and Picoprep. Patients using Picoprep scored significantly better on the aspects of convenience and flavour of the preparation agent compared with patients using Kleanprep (P<0.001). Side effects such as nausea (P=0.011), vomiting (P=0.001), headache (P=0.003) and bloating (P<0.001) were experienced less significantly by patients using Picoprep.

CONCLUSION

The present study did not find a difference in the effectiveness of bowel cleansing between Kleanprep and Picoprep. Both were found to be adequate cleansing agents. Picoprep was significantly better tolerated than Kleanprep. Therefore, we recommend Picoprep as a first-choice regimen for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Randomized clinical trial comparing reduced-volume oral picosulfate and a prepackaged low-residue diet with 4-liter PEG solution for bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

Reduced-volume bowel preparation with a low-residue diet prior to colonoscopy would result in better patient compliance and sufficient bowel preparation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy of reduced-volume sodium picosulfate and a prepackaged low-residue diet with that of the standard bowel preparation using 4 L of PEG solution.

DESIGN

Prospective, single center, single blind, active control, randomized study (NCCCTS-12-619, KCT0000470).

SETTING

Ambulatory outpatient clinic at the National Cancer Center, Republic of Korea.

PATIENTS

A total of 194 subjects were randomly assigned for this study, 97 in each group. After exclusions, 94 subjects in the Picolight group and 90 in the PEG group completed the study and were analyzed.

INTERVENTIONS

Sodium picosulfate with a prepackaged low-residue, one-day diet or 4-L PEG for bowel preparation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Success rate of the bowel preparation, tolerability, adverse events, cecal intubation time, polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS

The bowel preparation success rate was significantly higher (91.5% vs. 81.1%, p = 0.04) and the rates of adverse events, including abdominal distension, pain, nausea, vomiting and abdominal discomfort, were significantly lower in the picosulfate group than the PEG group. Cecal intubation times and the polyp and adenoma detection rates were similar in the 2 groups.

LIMITATIONS

Single center, limited population, all colonoscopies were performed in the morning.

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel preparation with low-volume oral picosulfate and a prepackaged low-residue diet enhances colon cleansing and is better tolerated than the standard bowel preparation.

What is the best strategy for successful bowel preparation under special conditions?

Adequate bowel preparation is important for successful colonoscopic examination. Several effective colonic cleansing agents are available and routinely prescribed, but each carries its own limitations and benefits from particular dosing regimens. The most frequently prescribed colonic cleansing agent, the polyethylene glycol (PEG) cathartic solution, suffers from low patient compliance in general, due to its unpalatable taste and smell coupled with the large ingested volumes required. However, PEG is preferred over other cathartics for use in individuals of advanced age, sufferers of chronic kidney disease, heart failure and inflammatory bowel disease, and women who are pregnant or lactating. The laxative agents sodium phosphate (NaP) and sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate have been applied and have improved patient compliance and tolerance. NaP, however, should be avoided in individuals with impaired renal function or plasma clearance, such as those with chronic kidney disease, who are taking drugs that affect renal function, or who suffer from heart failure. Other special conditions that may affect an individual’s tolerance of the cathartic agent or ability to complete the administration routine include stroke, severe constipation, hematochezia, suspicious lower gastrointestinal bleeding, and mental disorders such as dementia. All ingestible bowel preparation solutions can be instilled into the stomach and duodenum through nasogastric tube or esophagogastroduodenoscope with the aid of a water irrigation pump for patients with difficulties swallowing or ingesting the large volumes of fluid required. In addition, dietary regimens based on clear liquids and low-residue foods for 1-4 d prior to the colonoscopy may be supplemental bowel preparation strategies. Achieving an effective and safe cleansing of the bowel is important for successful colonoscopy in all patients, so full knowledge of the individual’s condition and capabilities is necessary to select the most appropriate colonic cleansing agent and delivery regimen.

Adjuncts to colonic cleansing before colonoscopy

Pre-procedural cleansing of the bowel can maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of colonoscopy. Yet, efficacy of the current gold standard colonic preparation method - high-volume oral administration of purgative agents 12-24 h prior to the procedure - is limited by several factors, such as patient compliance (due to poor palatability and inconvenience of the dosing regimen) and risks of complications (due to drug interactions or intolerance). Attempts to resolve these limitations have included providing adjunctive agents and methods to promote the colonic cleansing ability of the principal purgative agent, with the aim of lessening unpleasant side effects (such as bloating) and reducing the large ingested volume requirement. Several promising adjunctive agents are bisacodyl, magnesium citrate, senna, simethicone, metoclopramide, and prokinetics, and each are being investigated for their potential. This review provides an up to date summary of the reported investigations into the potencies and weaknesses of the key adjuncts currently being applied in clinic as supplements to the traditional bowel preparation agents. While the comparative analysis of these adjuncts showed that no single agent or method has yet achieved the goal of completely overcoming the limitations of the current gold standard preparation method, they at least provide endoscopists with an array of alternatives to help improve the suboptimal efficacy of the main cleansing solutions when used alone. To aid in this clinical endeavor, a subjective grade was assigned to each adjunct to indicate its practical value. In addition, the systematic review of the currently available agents and methods provides insight into the features of each that may be overcome or exploited to create novel drugs and strategies that may become adopted as effective bowel cleansing adjuncts or alternatives.

Efficacy and acceptability of sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate vs low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for colon cleansing: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

The study compared the efficacy, safety and tolerability of a low-volume picosulphate/magnesium citrate preparation with that of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG + ASC) in a randomized clinical trial (RCT).

METHOD

A multicentre randomized, single-blinded study was designed. Adult outpatients undergoing colonoscopy received either picosulphate/magnesium citrate (Group 1) or PEG + ASC (Group 2). Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and rated as adequate if ≥ 2 in each segment. Patient acceptance, satisfaction and related symptoms were recorded.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and eighty-five patients were included. Preparation was adequate in 75.7% of patients in Group 1 and in 76.5% of patients in Group 2. The mean BBPS scores for the entire colon and for the right colon were comparable between groups. In addition, 97.1% patients in Group 1 and 84.8% in Group 2 reported no or mild discomfort (P < 0.0003) and 97.8% and 83.4% expressed their willingness to repeat the preparation (P < 0.0001). Palatability was better in Group 1, whereas related symptoms occurred more frequently in Group 2. Regardless of which preparation was used, the split regimen was associated with better cleansing compared with the same-day method (OR = 3.39; 95% CI: 1.1-10.4; P = 0.03). Other predictors of poor cleansing were comorbidity, discomfort during preparation and incomplete (< 75%) preparation.

CONCLUSION

Both picosulphate/magnesium citrate and PEG + ASC are effective for bowel preparation. Tolerability and palatability are better for picosulphate/magnesium citrate. A split schedule is associated with higher cleansing quality also for low-volume regimens.

A critical evaluation and a search for the ideal colonoscopic preparation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of various bowel preparations in accomplishing colonic cleansing for optimal mucosal visualization during colonoscopy.

METHODS

The study included a cohort of 980 patients who underwent colonoscopy at our endoscopy center within the last 3 years. All of the study patients were subdivided into four groups. Each group included 245 patients, all receiving a different type of bowel preparation. The bowel preparations used in this study included: magnesium citrate (Group I), a combination of oral sodium phosphate (fleets) and powder PEG-3350 (Group II), powder polyethylene glycol-3350 (PEG-3350 powder for Group III), and oral sodium phosphate (fleets for Group IV). A Colon Prep Score (CPS) was devised to compare the quality of the different bowel preparations used. The colonoscopy results from all of these patients were tabulated and analyzed statistically and expressed as mean ± 1 standard deviation. Statistical analysis was performed using a one way ANOVA with Holm-Sidak method for intergroup analysis.

RESULTS

Group I patients received magnesium citrate and had a mean CPS ± 1 SD of 3.11 ± 0.91. Group II patients (fleets and powder PEG-3350 combination) achieved a CPS of 3.37 ± 1.16. The patients in Group III (powder PEG-3350) actually showed the highest mean CPS of 3.44 ± 1.12. Group IV patients who used oral sodium phosphate alone reached a mean CPS of 3.23 ± 1.01. Group III patients (powder PEG-3350 only) demonstrated a statistically higher CPS (P<0.0006) in colon cleansing as compared to Group I patients (magnesium citrate). Similarly, Group II patients (oral sodium phosphate and powder PEG-3350 combination) also showed improved colon cleansing statistically (P<0.006) as compared to Group I patients (magnesium citrate).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, all four colon preparations achieved an average CPS greater than 3.0 indicating clinically adequate colonic cleansing. However, powder PEG-3350 alone and in combination with oral sodium phosphate was observed to be statistically superior to magnesium citrate, when used for colon preparation for colonoscopy.

Meta-analysis: the relative efficacy of oral bowel preparations for colonoscopy 1985-2010

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews of bowel preparation for colonoscopy have given contradictory answers.

AIM

To provide a definitive insight, using PRISMA-compliant methodology.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review identified randomised controlled trials comparing bowel preparation regimens. Data for quality of bowel preparation were pooled in multiple meta-analyses exploring a range of inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 104 qualifying studies were identified, the majority of which involved comparisons of sodium phosphate (NaP) or polyethylene glycol (PEG). There was no significant difference demonstrated between NaP and PEG overall (OR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.56-1.21; P = 0.36). Cumulative meta-analysis demonstrated that this conclusion has been qualitatively similar since the mid 1990s, with little quantitative change for the past 10 years. Amongst studies with previous day dosing in both study arms there was a significant advantage in favour of PEG (OR = 1.78; 95% CI = 1.13-2.81; P = 0.006). Studies focussing on results in the proximal colon also favoured PEG (OR = 2.36; 95% CI = 1.16-4.77; P = 0.012). PEG was also significantly more effective than non-NaP bowel preparation regimens (OR = 2.02; 95% CI = 1.08-3.78; P = 0.03). Other comparisons showed no significant difference between regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is no compelling evidence favouring either of the two most commonly used bowel preparation regimens, this may reflect shortcomings in study design. Where studies have ensured comparable dosage, or the clinically relevant outcome of proximal bowel clearance is considered, PEG-based regimens offer the most effective option.

National CT colonography trial (ACRIN 6664): comparison of three full-laxative bowel preparations in more than 2500 average-risk patients

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to compare the effect of three different full-laxative bowel preparations on patient compliance, residual stool and fluid, reader confidence, and polyp detection at CT colonography (CTC).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A total of 2531 patients underwent CTC followed by colonoscopy for the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) National CTC Trial. Of this total, 2525 patients used one of three bowel preparations with bisacodyl tablets and stool and fluid tagging: 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG); 90 mL of phosphosoda; or 300 mL of magnesium citrate. Patients reported percent compliance with the bowel preparation and radiologists graded each CTC examination for the amount of residual fluid and stool on a scale from 1 (none) to 4 (nondiagnostic). Reader confidence for true-positive findings was reported on a 5-point scale: 1 (low) to 5 (high). Sensitivity and specificity for detecting polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 1 cm compared with colonoscopy were calculated for each preparation.

RESULTS

The most commonly prescribed preparation was phosphosoda (n = 1403) followed by PEG (n = 1020) and magnesium citrate (n = 102). Phosphosoda had the highest patient compliance (p = 0.01), least residual stool (p < 0.001), and highest reader confidence versus PEG for examinations with polyps (p = 0.06). Magnesium citrate had significantly more residual fluid compared with PEG and phosphosoda (p = 0.006). The sensitivity and specificity for detecting colon polyps ≥ 6 mm and ≥ 1 cm did not differ significantly between preparations.

CONCLUSION

Polyp detection was comparable for all three preparations, although phosphosoda had significantly higher patient compliance and the least residual stool.

Comparison of two common outpatient preparations for colonoscopy in children and youth

Colonoscopies are often performed in children for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Our study compared two bowel-cleansing solutions: sodium picosulphate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (Pico-Salax) with liquid magnesium citrate as preparations for colonoscopy. A retrospective chart review of all patients seen in the Gastroenterology outpatient clinic and who underwent bowel cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy from February to December 2006 was undertaken. Thirty-two children received Pico-Salax and 36 received liquid magnesium citrate. The tolerability of both solutions was similar. Most children in both groups had liquid stools and complete colonoscopies. Bowel preparation for a colonoscopy can be successfully achieved using either Pico-Salax or liquid magnesium citrate.

A multicentre, observational study of sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate as a precolonoscopy bowel preparation

BACKGROUND

Sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (PSMC) has been available as a precolonoscopy bowel preparation in Canada since 2005. A high patient acceptability and preference appears to have contributed to its wide adoption across the country. Despite its frequent use, there are relatively few published studies of this product, especially reports regarding its use in routine clinical practice. Moreover, to date, there have been no Canadian studies of any kind.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a preliminary evaluation of PSMC by prospectively collecting data describing its effectiveness.

METHODS

In the present multicentre, observational study, sequential patients used PSMC according to each institution's standard colonoscopy protocol. Differences in bowel cleansing protocols included dose timing, fluid intake, dietary restrictions and administration of bisacodyl. During colonoscopy, preparation quality was rated separately for the right and left sides of the colon.

RESULTS

Of the 613 patients entered, 606 were evaluable for efficacy. For the right and left colon, respectively, 93.0% and 96.2% of preparations were rated either 'excellent' or 'adequate'. In the 334 patients who received adjunctive bisacodyl and the 272 patients who did not, the results were similar: for the right and left colon, 92.3% and 97.1% of those who did not, and 93.4% and 95.7% of those who did receive bisacodyl, respectively, were rated either 'excellent' or 'adequate'.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the differences in bowel cleansing protocols used at each hospital (including an additional laxative), PSMC consistently yielded a high percentage of positive ratings for efficacy.

Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate: a review of its use as a colorectal cleanser

Oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (CitraFleet; Picolax), consisting of sodium picosulfate (a stimulant laxative) and magnesium citrate (an osmotic laxative), is approved for use in adults (CitraFleet; Picolax) and/or adolescents and children (Picolax) as a colorectal cleansing agent prior to any diagnostic procedure (e.g. colonoscopy or x-ray examination) requiring a clean bowel and/or surgery. It is dispensed in powder form (sodium picosulfate 0.01 g, magnesium oxide 3.5 g, citric acid 12.0 g per sachet), with the magnesium oxide and citric acid components forming magnesium citrate when the powder is dissolved in water. In adult patients, two sachets of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate was at least as effective and well tolerated as oral magnesium citrate 17.7 or 35.4 g, or oral polyethylene glycol 236 g in adult patients undergoing a double-contrast barium enema procedure in three large, randomized, comparative clinical studies. In contrast, sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate was less effective than a sodium phosphate enema preparation in two studies in patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy. A similar number of patients receiving two sachets of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate or two 45 mL doses of oral sodium phosphate the day before a double-contrast barium enema procedure achieved satisfactory barium coating and none/minimal faecal residue in one study. However, the data from three of these studies should be interpreted with caution because the administrative regimens used differed from that recommended. Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate is also an effective and generally well tolerated colorectal cleansing agent in children and adolescents; the preparation was more effective than oral bisacodyl 0.01 or 0.02 g plus a sodium phosphate enema preparation in this population. Further research is thus required to accurately position sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate and fully establish its efficacy and tolerability prior to various exploratory or surgical procedures. Nevertheless, oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate provides a useful option in the preparation of the colon and rectum in adults, adolescents and children undergoing any diagnostic procedure (e.g. colonoscopy or x-ray examination) requiring a clean bowel and/or surgery. Oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate acts locally in the colon as both a stimulant laxative, by increasing the frequency and the force of peristalsis (sodium picosulfate component), and an osmotic laxative, by retaining fluids in the colon (magnesium citrate component), to clear the colon and rectum of faecal contents. It is not absorbed in any detectable quantities. Sodium picosulfate is a prodrug: it is hydrolyzed by bacteria in the colon to the active metabolite 4,4'-dihydroxydiphenyl-(2-pyridyl)methane. Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate may be associated with a dehydrating effect, as evidenced by a reduction in bodyweight and increased haemoglobin levels; some at-risk patients may experience postural hypotension and older patients may require additional electrolytes. In three large (n >100), randomized, single-blind clinical studies, two sachets of oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate was at least as effective as oral magnesium citrate 17.7 or 35.4 g, or oral polyethylene glycol 236 g as a colorectal cleansing agent in adult patients undergoing a double-contrast barium enema procedure. In contrast, sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate was less effective than a sodium phosphate enema preparation in two studies in patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy. A similar number of patients receiving two sachets of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate or two 45 mL doses of oral sodium phosphate the day before a double-contrast barium enema procedure achieved satisfactory barium coating and none/minimal faecal residue in one study. However, the data from three of these studies should be interpreted with caution because the administrative regimens used differed from that recommended. In children and adolescents, sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate was significantly more effective as a colorectal cleansing agent than oral bisacodyl 0.01 or 0.02 g plus a sodium phosphate enema preparation in a randomized, single-blind study; dosages were adjusted for age in this study. Oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate is generally well tolerated in adult patients undergoing various investigational colorectal procedures. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate in intensity and mainly gastrointestinal in nature (e.g. abdominal cramps/pain, nausea); other common treatment-emergent adverse events included disturbance of daily activity, headache and sleep disturbance. This combination is at least as well tolerated as oral sodium phosphate or oral polyethylene glycol, with moderate/severe nausea and vomiting occurring less frequently in sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate recipients than in those receiving oral sodium phosphate, and abdominal bloating/pain and nausea developing less often with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate than polyethylene glycol therapy. The incidence of abdominal pain and sleep disturbance in sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate versus oral magnesium citrate recipients was similar in one study, but significantly lower with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate in another. While the incidence of most adverse events was similar in recipients of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate and a sodium phosphate enema preparation, more patients receiving sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate reported moderate/severe flatulence, incontinence and sleep disturbance, and more patients receiving the enema preparation reported rectal soreness. The tolerability profile of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate in patients aged >70 years is reportedly similar to that in patients aged <70 years. Abdominal pain also occurred less frequently with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate than with oral bisacodyl plus a sodium phosphate enema preparation in children and adolescents.

Addition of senna improves quality of colonoscopy preparation with magnesium citrate

AIM: To prospectively investigate the effectiveness and patient’s tolerance of two low-cost bowel cleansing preparation protocols based on magnesium citrate only or the combination of magnesium citrate and senna.

METHODS: A total of 342 patients who were referred for colonoscopy underwent a colon cleansing protocol with magnesium citrate alone (n = 160) or magnesium citrate and senna granules (n = 182). The colonoscopist rated the overall efficacy of colon cleansing using an established score on a 4-point scale. Patients were questioned before undergoing colonoscopy for side effects and symptoms during bowel preparation.

RESULTS: The percentage of procedures rescheduled because of insufficient colon cleansing was 7% in the magnesium citrate group and 4% in the magnesium citrate/senna group (P = 0.44). Adequate visualization of the colonic mucosa was rated superior under the citramag/senna regimen (P = 0.004). Both regimens were well tolerated, and did not significantly differ in the occurrence of nausea, bloating or headache. However, abdominal cramps were observed more often under the senna protocol (29.2%) compared to the magnesium citrate only protocol (9.9%, P < 0.0003).

CONCLUSION: The addition of senna to the bowel preparation protocol with magnesium citrate significantly improves the cleansing outcome.

A randomised controlled trial of a new 2 litre polyethylene glycol solution versus sodium picosulphate + magnesium citrate solution for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

A new 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution containing ascorbic acid (Asc) and electrolytes (Moviprep) has been developed for bowel cleansing.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and acceptability of PEG + Asc versus sodium picosulphate + magnesium citrate in patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This single blind, parallel group pilot study included 65 adult male and female patients. A blinded assessment of cleansing was made for each bowel segment by the colonoscopist and the scores determined an overall grading of bowel cleansing. Patients completed a questionnaire on the acceptability of the preparation.

RESULTS

Successful bowel preparation was reported in 84.4% of patients who received PEG + Asc and 72.7% of patients who received sodium picosulphate + magnesium citrate (treatment difference +11.6, 95% CI -11.2, +34.5; p = 0.367). Patients were more likely to have a higher overall quality of bowel cleansing with PEG + Asc (p = 0.018), with specifically better cleansing in the ascending colon (p = 0.024) and caecum (p = 0.003) compared with patients who received sodium picosulphate + magnesium citrate. The adverse event profile of the two treatments was similar, with headache and gastrointestinal effects being the most commonly reported. Some patient acceptability results favoured sodium picosulphate + magnesium citrate for those patients who had experience of previous bowel preparation, but were similar for those patients who had not had a previous bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

PEG + Asc provided effective bowel cleansing, which was equivalent to that of sodium picosulphate + magnesium citrate in terms of grading cleansing as overall success or failure. In the proximal colon (ascending colon and caecum) PEG + Asc provided significantly better cleansing to that achieved with sodium picosulphate + magnesium citrate.

Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study to investigate the efficacy and safety of the acute use of sodium picosulphate in patients with chronic constipation

There are few studies supporting the effective and safe use of laxatives for constipation. This study examined the short-term efficacy and safety of sodium picosulphate in patients with chronic constipation. Patients with a history of chronic constipation for at least 3 months were randomised to receive 7 mg sodium picosulphate or placebo for three consecutive nights. Patients recorded stool frequency and consistency, straining, bloating, and pain at baseline and during treatment. Vital signs, haematocrit, serum creatinine and electrolytes were monitored. Primary end-point for efficacy was the occurrence of a response to treatment, defined as improvement in stool frequency and occurrence of straining. All 57 randomised patients (sodium picosulphate n = 29, placebo n = 28; mean age 54.8 and 54.1 years) completed the study. Sodium picosulphate produced a treatment response (improved stool frequency and straining) in 82.8% compared with 50% in the placebo group (p = 0.010) and reduced bloating more often than placebo. There were no serious adverse events and one patient with diarrhoea and another with abdominal pain in each treatment group. There were no cardiovascular effects, changes in serum haematocrit, creatinine or electrolytes in either group. This study confirmed that sodium picosulphate is an effective, well-tolerated and safe laxative in the acute treatment of constipation.

Comparison of bisacodyl and sodium picosulphate in the treatment of chronic constipation

BACKGROUND

Chronic constipation is a widespread condition. Although laxatives are generally accepted as being effective treatments, few studies have made formal comparisons of their efficacy and safety in chronic use.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of bisacodyl and sodium picosulphate in the treatment of chronic constipation over a 4-week period.

METHODS

Patients with chronic constipation (N = 144), recruited from out-patient clinics, were analysed for safety and efficacy in this open-label, randomised, parallel-group study. Patients were treated daily for 4 weeks (bisacodyl, 5-10 mg daily: 70 patients; sodium picosulphate, 5-10 mg daily: 74 patients). Primary efficacy criteria consisted of the number of bowel movements and stool consistency. Secondary efficacy criteria were straining at stool and physicians' global efficacy assessment. Safety assessments included adverse event monitoring, tolerability and changes in laboratory parameters.

RESULTS

Both treatments were equally effective in treating chronic constipation, providing sustained improvement in symptoms. Compared to baseline, there were significant (p < 0.001) improvements in stool frequency and consistency and in the occurrence of straining at 14 and 28 days for both treatment groups. Based on the physicians' global assessment, a significant improvement was observed in 74.6% (bisacodyl) and 79.2% (sodium picosulphate) of patients. Neither treatment had significant effects on serum electrolytes. There was a trend for better tolerability in patients receiving bisacodyl treatment based on the number of drug-related adverse events (bisacodyl: 7; sodium picosulphate: 14, two patients withdrawn).

CONCLUSIONS

Bisacodyl and sodium picosulphate are equally well tolerated and effective in the treatment of chronic constipation over a 4-week period.

Commonly used preparations for colonoscopy: efficacy, tolerability, and safety--a Canadian Association of Gastroenterology position paper

INTRODUCTION

The increased demand for colonoscopy, coupled with the introduction of new bowel cleansing preparations and recent caution advisories in Canada, has prompted a review of bowel preparations by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

METHODS

The present review was conducted by the Clinical Affairs group of committees including the endoscopy, hepatobiliary/transplant, liaison, pediatrics, practice affairs and regional representation committees, along with the assistance of Canadian experts in the field. An effort was made to systematically assess randomized prospective trials evaluating commonly used bowel cleansing preparations in Canada.

RESULTS

Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-; sodium phosphate (NaP)-; magnesium citrate (Mg-citrate)-; and sodium picosulphate, citric acid and magnesium oxide (PSMC)-containing preparations were reviewed. Regimens of PEG 2 L with bisacodyl (10 mg to 20 mg) or Mg-citrate (296 mL) are as effective as standard PEG 4 L regimens, but are better tolerated. NaP preparations appear more effective and better tolerated than standard PEG solutions. PSMC has good efficacy and tolerability but head-to-head trials with NaP solutions remain few, and conclusions equivocal. Adequate hydration during preparation and up to the time of colonoscopy is critical in minimizing side effects and improving bowel cleansing in patients receiving NaP and PSMC preparations. All preparations may cause adverse events, including rare, serious outcomes. NaP should not be used in patients with cardiac or renal dysfunction (PEG solution is preferable in these patients), bowel obstruction or ascites, and caution should be exercised when used in patients with pre-existing electrolyte disturbances, those taking medications that may affect electrolyte levels and elderly or debilitated patients. Health Canada's recommended NaP dosing for most patients is two 45 mL doses 24 h apart. However, both safety and efficacy data on this dosing schedule are lacking. Many members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology expert panel administer both doses within 24 h, as studied in clinical trials, after careful one-on-one discussion of risks and benefits in carefully selected patients. Safety data on PSMC and combination preparations in North America are limited and clinicians are encouraged to keep abreast of developments in this area.

CONCLUSIONS

All four preparations reviewed provided effective bowel cleansing for colonoscopy in the majority of patients, with varying tolerability. Adequate hydration is essential in patients receiving the preparations.

A randomized prospective trial comparing different regimens of oral sodium phosphate and polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Regulatory agencies have warned clinicians regarding the risk of electrolyte abnormalities if more than two 45-mL bottles of oral sodium phosphate (NaP) solution are administered within a 24-hour period.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of different regimens of oral NaP and polyethylene glycol (PEG).

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Teaching hospital outpatient endoscopy clinic.

PATIENTS

Two hundred outpatients without comorbidities who underwent routine colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Two bottles of NaP, 6, 12, or 24 hours apart; or 4 L PEG.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Bowel preparation quality, patient tolerability, and electrolyte changes.

RESULTS

The 12- and 24-hour NaP achieved better cleansing than the 6-hour NaP or PEG. Only 8.5% and 8.3% of patients in the 24- and 12-hour NaP had poor preparations, respectively, compared with 15.6% and 23.4% in the 6-hour NaP and PEG, respectively. The poorer preparation scores with PEG were partly because of a greater amount of colonic fluid. There were no relevant electrolyte changes with PEG, whereas hypokalemia, hypocalcemia, or hyperphosphatemia developed in 5% to 57% of patients on NaP. All regimens were poorly tolerated by patients.

LIMITATIONS

The study was likely underpowered to detect small group differences in electrolytes.

CONCLUSIONS

A 24- or 12-hour NaP bowel preparation strategy was more effective than NaP 6 hours apart or PEG. PEG use is associated with more residual colonic fluid but represents an alternative to NaP in some clinical situations.

Which is the optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy - a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess which bowel preparation agent is most effective.

METHODS

A search of randomized trials between January 1990 and July 2005 was obtained, using MEDLINE and PubMed databases, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Meta-analysis was performed using the Forest plot review.

RESULTS

Sodium phosphate (NaP) was more effective in bowel cleansing than polyethylene glycol (PEG) - odds ratio 0.75 (95%CI: 0.65-0.88; P = 0.0004); and sodium picosulphate (SPS) - odds ratio 0.52 (95%CI: 0.34-0.81; P = 0.004). PEG and SPS were comparable in bowel cleansing ability, odds ratio 1.69 (95%CI: 0.92-3.13; P = 0.09). NaP was more easily completed by patients compared to PEG, odds ratio 0.16 (95%CI: 0.09-0.29; P < 0.00001). More patients were able to complete SPS than PEG, but this was not statistically significant - odds ratio 0.56 (95%CI: 0.28-1.13; P = 0.11). NaP and PEG were comparable in terms of adverse events, odds ratio 0.98 (95%CI: 0.82-1.17; P = 0.81), although NaP resulted in more asymptomatic hypokalaemia and hyperphosphataemia. NaP and SPS appeared to have similar incidence of adverse events. PEG resulted in more adverse events than SPS, odds ratio 3.82 (95%CI: 1.60-9.15; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

NaP was more effective in bowel cleansing than PEG or SPS and was comparable in terms of adverse events. Patients have more difficulty completing PEG than NaP and SPS. Biochemical changes associated with a small-volume preparation like NaP, albeit largely asymptomatic, mandate caution in patients with cardiovascular or renal impairment.

Audit of bowel preparation with Picolax (sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate) for colonoscopy

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy with standard dose Picolax (two sachets administered on the day prior to the procedure, as per the manufacturer's instructions) in a large cohort of patients. A retrospective audit was performed of colonoscopies performed at our institution over a 1-year period. Patients were excluded if standard dose Picolax was not used, if the quality of the bowel preparation was not recorded or if completion of the procedure was not recorded. Of the 619 fully evaluable cases, the quality of the bowel preparation was assessed by the colonoscopist performing the procedure as good in 263 (42.5%), satisfactory in 242 (39.1%) and poor in 114 (18.4%) of the cases. In only 28 (4.5%) cases, poor bowel preparation was the reason cited for an incomplete colonoscopy. There was no difference in the quality of bowel preparation between inpatients and outpatients. In clinical practice, Picolax is an effective bowel preparation for colonoscopy in the vast majority of cases.

Hyponatremia and seizures after bowel preparation: report of three cases

Oral sodium phosphate and sodium picosulfates/magnesium citrate are commonly used to evacuate the colon and rectum before colonoscopy or colorectal surgery. These substances, however, are known to cause electrolyte abnormalities. Seizures caused by electrolyte abnormalities associated with bowel preparation have only rarely been reported. We report the cases of three patients with no prior history of seizures, who had their first seizure associated with hyponatremia following ingestion of sodium phosphate or sodium picosulfates/magnesium citrate combination. Care must be taken with patients with a low seizure threshold and those with possible chronic sodium depletion, such as patients on thiazide diuretics, who are undertaking bowel preparation with oral sodium phosphate or sodium picosulfates/magnesium citrate combination.

Position Paper: Cathartics

The administration of a cathartic alone has no role in the management of the poisoned patient and is not recommended as a method of gut decontamination. Experimental data are conflicting regarding the use of cathartics in combination with activated charcoal. No clinical studies have been published to investigate the ability of a cathartic, with or without activated charcoal, to reduce the bioavailability of drugs or to improve the outcome of poisoned patients. Based on available data, the routine use of a cathartic in combination with activated charcoal is not endorsed. If a cathartic is used, it should be limited to a single dose in order to minimize adverse effects of the cathartic. A review of the literature since the preparation of the 1997 Cathartics Position Statement revealed no new evidence that would require a revision of the conclusions of the Statement.

Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation quality scales are used to document the superiority of one preparation regime vs. another. The validity and reliability of these scales are not routinely stated in reports of studies in which the scales are used. A new colonoscopy bowel preparation scale (the Ottawa bowel preparation scale) was developed and validated prospectively.

METHODS

Ninety-seven consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were entered into the study. The quality of the bowel preparation was assessed independently by two investigators who used the Ottawa scale, and the only other validated scale (Aronchick scale) that could be identified. The interobserver agreement and reliability of each scale was assessed by the Pearson correlation coefficient (r), the intraclass correlation coefficient, and regression analysis.

RESULTS

The Pearson correlation coefficients were, respectively, 0.89 and 0.62 for the Ottawa and Aronchick scales (p<0.001). The values for the kappa statistic, an intraclass correlation coefficient measuring agreement over and above chance agreement, were, respectively, 0.94 and 0.77 (p<0.001). Linear regression analysis, mapping the line best describing the scatter of scores by raters, for the Ottawa scale revealed a slope of the line of 0.93 and a y intercept of 0.10. The Aronchick scale revealed a slope of 0.65 and a y intercept of 0.46. The Ottawa scale thus was closer to an identity line comparing raters (i.e., closer to a line with slope of 1.00 and y intercept of 0.00). The Ottawa scale demonstrated a right colon kappa (intraclass correlation coefficient) of 0.92: 95% CI[0.88, 0.95], a mid colon kappa (intraclass correlation coefficient) of 0.88: 95% CI[0.82, 0.92], and a rectosigmoid kappa (intraclass correlation coefficient) of 0.89: 95% CI[0.83, 0.92].

CONCLUSIONS

The Ottawa scale was validated prospectively and demonstrates high interobserver agreement and reliability, whether used as a total score or for individual colon segments.

Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance

PURPOSE

To compare reduced colonic cleansing based on dietary fecal tagging (FT) with standard (non-FT) colonic cleansing with regard to patient acceptance, sensitivity, and specificity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 50 patients (FT group), FT was performed by means of diet, magnesium citrate, and a barium suspension. In another 50 patients (non-FT group), preparation was based on polyethylene glycol administration. All patients underwent conventional colonoscopy after computed tomographic (CT) colonography. Sensitivity and specificity for polyp detection were calculated by using conventional colonography as the reference standard. At CT colonography, fecal residue was evaluated. Patients were interviewed to determine discomfort, side effects, sleep quality, final opinion on examination comfort, and whether they would be reluctant to undergo the same examination again.

RESULTS

FT left more fecal residue but improved differentiation from polyps (FT specificity, 88% [30 of 34 patients]; non-FT, 77% [23 of 30 patients]). Sensitivities were comparable: FT, 88% (14 of 16 patients); non-FT, 85% (17 of 20 patients). FT significantly reduced discomfort, side effects, and sleep disturbance, and resulted in an improved final opinion of how comfortable the examination was (P <.05). Although FT improved patient willingness to repeat the examination, this improvement was not statistically significant (P >.05).

CONCLUSION

FT offers the patient a well-tolerated preparation and improves specificity, with improved differentiation of polyps from residual stool.