Low-residue breakfast during the preparation for colonoscopy using a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution: a randomised non-inferiority trial

A NORMOCALORIC, LOW-FIBER DIET FOR COLONOSCOPY PREPARATION IS MORE ACCEPTABLE AND NON-INFERIOR TO A LIQUID, LOW-CALORIE DIET: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

•This is the first study in Brazil about diets to prepare for colonoscopy. •The normocaloric diet was not inferior to the liquid diet regarding the quality of the colonoscopy preparation. •Both diets were well tolerated, but the normocaloric diet was more accepted than the liquid diet. Background - Several publications have shown greater acceptance of less restrictive diets for colonoscopy preparation, without impairing the quality of the preparation, when compared to the clear liquid diet. Objective - To evaluate the quality, tolerance and preference regarding the colonoscopy preparation of a low-fiber, normocaloric diet compared with a hypocaloric liquid diet. Methods - This is a randomized, controlled, observer-blind study to compare two low-fiber colonoscopy preparation diets (hypocaloric liquid diet vs. normocaloric diet). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used to evaluate the qua-lity of the preparations, being considered adequate BBPS ≥6 in the global assessment and ≥2 in each segment. The same laxative was used in both groups as well as the "split-dose" regimen. Results - A total of 136 individuals were enrolled in each group. Adequate preparation was achieved in 90.4% of the individuals allocated to the liquid diet group and 92.6% to the normocaloric group. There was no significant difference in the quality of preparation and tolerance between groups. A higher patient acceptance to repeat the procedure if necessary was observed in the normocaloric diet group compared with the liquid diet group (P=0.005). Conclusion - The normocaloric diet has shown to be not inferior to the liquid diet regarding the quality of the colonoscopy preparation. Patient tolerance rates were similar between both diets, but a higher accep-tance rate was observed with the normocaloric diet as compared with the liquid diet.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Low-Residue Diet Versus Clear Liquid Diet: Which Is Better for Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy?

The goal of this systematic review was to compare the clear liquid diet and the low-residue diet to determine which is better for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. A literature search for randomized controlled trials on the effects of employing the clear liquid diet and low-residue diets before colonoscopy was conducted in major online English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid EMBASE). After the systematic review of all 16 studies, the outcomes including quality of bowel preparation, tolerance, willingness to repeat, and adverse effects were analyzed through meta-analysis. The statistical analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. No statistically significant difference was observed between the low-residue diet and clear liquid diet groups (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.19 [0.79, 1.81]; p = .41). There was no statistically significant difference between the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (standard mean difference [95% confidence interval] =-0.04 [-0.21, -0.14]; p = .68) Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (standard mean difference [95% confidence interval] =-0.04 [-0.19, 0.11]; p = .59) scores of the two groups. The quality indicators for colonoscopy of the two groups were not statistically significant. However, patient tolerance to the low-residue diet was higher (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.86 [1.47, 2.36]; p < .01). More patients in the low-residue diet group were willing to repeat the low-residue diet for bowel preparation (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 2.34 [1.72, 3.17]; p < .01). More patients in the clear liquid diet group experienced hunger, nausea, and vomiting. People who employed the low-residue diet before colonoscopy had the same quality of bowel preparation as those with clear liquid diet. Meanwhile, the tolerance of people with low-residue diet was better than people with clear liquid diet, and these people were more willing to repeat the colonoscopy with less adverse events.

Low-residue versus clear liquid diet before colonoscopy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

Great value in the early identification and treatment of adenomatous polyps or early canceration using colonoscopy has been recognized. A clear colonoscopic vision brought by good intestinal preparation will become crucial. Several studies have completed using the low-residue diet (LRD) versus a clear liquid diet (CLD) the day before colonoscopy that presenting contradictory results. Therefore, a more comprehensive and updated meta-analysis is needed to summarize the findings on the effects of LRD and CLD on intestinal preparation and the quality of coloscopy.The comprehensive search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane databases (February 2020). LRD vs CLD before colonoscopy were included in this study. Mantel-Haenszel or DerSimonian and Laird models with the relative risk (RR) to evaluate differences in intestinal preparation, tolerance, readiness to repeat preparation, detected of a polyp, and overall adverse reactions.Total 16 studies (N = 3413) were eligible. Patients with LRD compared with CLD indicated significantly better of tolerability (RR 0.92;95% CI,0.85-0.99; P < .05) and willingness to repeat intestinal preparation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79-0.93; P < .05), but no differences with adequate intestinal preparations, detected polyp or overall adverse reactions (all P > .05).Patients with LRD the day before colonoscopy show better tolerance and willingness to repeat intestinal preparation, and no difference with adequate intestinal preparations compared with CLD, but the recommended level of evidence is weak. However, in terms of the detection rate of intestinal adenomas, the LRD group is not weaker than the CLD group, for its evidence level is high, and can significantly reduce the hunger experience of patients.

Low-residual diet versus clear-liquid diet for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare a low-residual diet (LRD) with a clear-liquid diet (CLD) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases for randomized clinical trials comparing LRD with CLD for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The last search was performed on September 20, 2019. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation. The outcomes were compared using systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

RESULTS

Twenty randomized controlled trials published between 2005 and 2019 with 4323 participants were included. LRD was comparable with CLD for adequate bowel preparation (P = .79; odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.29). The detection rates for polyps (P = .68; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86-1.27) or adenomas (P = .78; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86-1.23) were similar between the groups. There were significantly fewer advents in individuals in the LRD group: nausea (P = .02; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.94), vomiting (P = .04; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.98), hunger (P < .001; OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.53), and headache (P = .02; OR ,0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93). In addition, significantly more individuals in the LRD group found it easy to complete the diet (P = .01; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15-3.00) and showed willingness to repeat it (P = .005; OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.28-3.89). TSA demonstrated that the cumulative Z curve crossed both the traditional boundary and the trial sequential monitoring boundary for adequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that LRD was comparable with CLD in the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy. More clinical trials are needed to confirm other outcomes.

Multidirectional Colonoscopy Quality Improvement Increases Adenoma Detection Rate: Results of the Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center Colonoscopy Quality Upgrade Project (Gangnam-CUP)

BACKGROUND

To prevent colorectal cancer, high-quality colonoscopy is advocated, undertaken by endoscopists with high adenoma detection rates (ADRs). Despite reports that various factors may impact ADRs, the significance of such factors is still unclear.

AIMS

The analysis was aimed at quality-oriented interventions for boosting ADRs.

METHODS

Study enrollees were adults subjected to screening colonoscopy between September 2013 and August 2016 at the Gangnam Center of Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System. The investigation entailed six periods (P1-6) of 6 months each, during which serial multidirectional quality improvement efforts were instituted. In particular, we sought to further educate endoscopists, provide feedback on individual ADRs, and introduce a split-dose regimen, gauging results via the Boston Bowel Preparation Score. Changes in polyp detection rates (PDRs) and ADRs were then analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 13,430 colonoscopies were undertaken by 15 experienced endoscopists. Overall, the ADR increased from 45.6% (P1) to 48.2% (P6, p < 0.001). The PDR, ADR, and advanced adenoma detection rate (AdvADR) showed the greatest increases between P3 and P4 [PDR 67.8% → 71.2% (p < 0.001); ADR 44.1% → 47.7% (p = 0.001); AdvADR 2.3% → 3.3% (p = 0.028)] in keeping with the introduction of a split-dose regimen. The sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (SSADR) increased substantially from 2.1% (P1) to 7.9% (P6, p < 0.001), with the largest gain between P1 and P2, just after education (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Successful quality improvement in colonoscopy was achieved through comprehensive multidirectional efforts in education, feedback, and enhanced bowel preparation. Achieving high-level bowel preparation was paramount in ADR improvement. The SSADR was improved through education.

Does It work in Clinical Practice? A Comparison of Colonoscopy Cleansing Effectiveness in Clinical Practice Versus Efficacy from Selected Prospective Trials

Background

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for a high-quality colonoscopy. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated bowel preparation protocols, including split-dose and low-volume regimens. However, RCTs are conducted in an ideal, controlled setting, and translation of trial results to clinical practice is challenging. In this study, we compared the quality of bowel preparations of real-world patients from clinical practice with those enrolled in several prospective trials.

Methods

Bowel preparation quality, defined by the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), from four RCTs and one prospective trial were compared with two observational diary studies. Bowel preparations were polyethylene glycol preparation (PEG) or sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (P/MC) taken via traditional or split-dose timing regimen. Age, sex, average number of bowel movements per day, comorbidities, colonoscopy indication and colonoscopy completion rates were also collected.

Results

Patients enrolled in prospective trials had a better OBPS by one point when compared with those in observational clinical practice studies (P<0.049), after controlling for age, sex, colonoscopy indication and type of bowel preparation used. We also found that each 10-year increase in age was associated with a 0.2 point increase in OBPS (P=0.008), and men were associated with a 0.5 increase in OBPS when compared with women P=0.014).

Conclusion

Patients from clinical practice have higher OBPS than prospective trial patients. Increased age and male sex were also associated with increased OBPS. We believe increased patient motivation and education around bowel preparation regimen plays an important role in the success of bowel preparations.

Results of a Community-based, Randomized Study Comparing a Clear Liquid Diet With a Low-residue Diet Using a Magnesium Citrate Preparation for Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopies

BACKGROUND

Current bowel preparations for colonoscopy include a clear liquid diet (CLD) along with consumption of a laxative. This dietary restriction along with large volume bowel preparations are barriers to compliance and willingness among patients in scheduling screening examinations. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a low-volume split dose magnesium citrate bowel preparation in patients on a low-residue diet (LRD) with those on a CLD.

METHODS

In this single center, single blinded, randomized controlled trial, patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopies were assigned to either a CLD or a LRD 1 day before the examination. Both groups received a split dose magnesium citrate preparation. The quality of the preparation was rated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Patient satisfaction and side effects were evaluated using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

We were unable to detect a significant difference in the BBPS scores between the LRD and CLD groups (P=0.581). A significantly higher percentage of patients in the LRD group rated the diet as easy compared with the CLD group (P<0.001). Satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the LRD group, compared with the CLD group (P<0.001). The side effect profiles of both arms were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference between LRD and CLD in patients using a magnesium citrate bowel preparation for screening and surveillance colonoscopies. Patient satisfaction scores were higher with a LRD compared with a CLD. We believe the LRD should be the recommended diet in patients using a standard bowel preparation for screening and surveillance colonoscopy.

Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates

OPINION STATEMENT

The adenoma detection rate (ADR), i.e., the proportion of average risk patients with at least one adenoma detected during screening colonoscopy, is inversely associated with the development of interval colorectal cancer. Increasing the ADR is therefore an important proxy for increase in quality and efficacy of (screening) colonoscopy. Several potentially modifiable factors, such as, procedural and technological factors, and quality improvement programs, and their effect on the ADR will be reviewed. Procedural factors, such as, bowel preparation, withdrawal time, and position changes of the patient are associated with the ADR. While the relation of others, such as inspection during insertion, use of antispasmodic agents, and second inspection in the proximal colon, with the ADR is not completely clear. Many new colonoscopy technologies have been evaluated over recent years and are still under evaluation, but no unequivocal positive effect on the ADR has been observed in randomized trials that have mostly been performed by experienced endoscopists with high baseline ADRs. Several quality improvement programs have been evaluated and seem to have a positive effect on endoscopists' ADR. Increase in ADR is important for the protective benefit of colonoscopy. There are now extensive methods to measure, benchmark, and improve ADR but increased awareness of these is critical. We have provided an overview of potential factors that can be used to increase personal ADRs in every day practice.