Polyethylene glycol versus split high-dose senna for bowel preparation: A comparative prospective randomized study

Cleaning effect and tolerance of 16 bowel preparation regimens on adult patients before colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Before a colonoscopy, an adequate bowel preparation (BP) is required. Currently, more novel regimens with different effects have been proposed and used successively. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the cleaning effects and patients' tolerability of several BP regimens.

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including sixteen kinds of BP regimens. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The outcomes of this study were bowel cleansing effect and tolerance.

RESULTS

We included a total of 40 articles with 13,064 patients. For the primary outcomes, polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid (Asc) + simethicone (Sim) (OR, 14.27, 95%CrI, 2.68-127.87) regimen is ranked first in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PEG + Sim (OR, 2.0, 95%CrI 0.64-6.4) regimen is ranked first in Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), but without significant differences. For the secondary outcomes, PEG + Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SP/MC) (OR, 4.88e + 11, 95%CrI, 39.56-1.82e + 35) regimen is the best in cecal intubation rate(CIR). PEG + Sim (OR,1.5, 95%CrI, 1.0-2.2) regimen is ranked first in adenoma detection rate(ADR). Senna (OR, 3.23, 95%CrI, 1.04-9.97) and SP/MC (OR, 249.91, 95%CrI, 78.49-958.19) regimens are ranked first in abdominal pain and willingness to repeat, respectively. There is no significant difference in cecal intubation time (CIT), polyp detection rate (PDR), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloat.

CONCLUSION

PEG + Asc + Sim regimen is more effective at cleaning the bowel. PEG + SP/MC will be helpful to increase CIR. For ADR, PEG + Sim regimen will be more helpful. In addition, PEG + Asc + Sim is the least likely to cause abdominal bloat, while Senna regimen is more likely to cause abdominal pain. Patients prefer to re-use the SP/MC regimen for bowel preparation.

Safety and efficacy comparison of polyethylene glycol, hemp seed oil, and 5% sugar brine for bowel preparation in older patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer among the middle-aged and elderly is gradually increasing in China. Colonoscopy is an effective method for the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer, and bowel preparation is one of many important factors affecting colonoscopy. Although there are many studies on intestinal cleansers, the results are not ideal. There is evidence that hemp seed oil has certain potential effects in intestinal cleansing, but prospective studies on this topic are still lacking.

METHODS

This is a randomized, double-blind, single-center clinical study. We randomly assigned 690 participants to groups each administered 3 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG), 30 mL of hemp seed oil and 2 L of PEG, or 30 mL of hempseed oil, 2 L of PEG, and 1000 mL of 5% sugar brine. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was considered the primary outcome measure. We evaluated the interval between consumption of bowel preparation and first bowel movement. Secondary indicators included the time of cecal intubation, detection rate of polyps and adenomas, willingness to repeat the same bowel preparation, whether the protocol was tolerated, and whether there were adverse reactions during bowel preparation and were evaluated after counting the total number of bowel movements.

DISCUSSION

This study aimed to test the hypothesis that hemp seed oil (30 mL) increases the quality of bowel preparation and reduces the amount of PEG. Previously, we found that its combination with 5% sugar brine can reduce the occurrence of adverse reactions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200057626. Prospectively registered on March 15, 2022.

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.

The Efficacy of Senna Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The quality of bowel preparation is an extremely important determinant of colonoscopy results. However, the efficacy of senna regimens in improving bowel cleanliness is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize data on whether using a senna bowel preparation regimen enhances the bowel cleanliness. We searched Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases (from the inception to August 2021). The primary efficacy outcome was bowel cleanliness. Secondary outcomes included patient compliance, tolerance, and adverse events. Eleven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (3,343 patients. Overall, we found no significant differences in bowel cleanliness between the senna regimen and other bowel preparation regimens (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.02 [0.63, 1.67], p = 0.93). There was significant difference in tolerance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.66 [1.08, 2.54], p = .02) and compliance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.05 [1.42, 6.55], p = .004). The senna regimen yielded a significantly greater proportion of no nausea (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.45, 2.32]) and vomiting (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.65 [0.81, 3.35]). Compared with other bowel preparation regimens, the senna regimen may be effective and safe in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy, with superior compliance and tolerance.

The unmet needs for identifying the ideal bowel preparation

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