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

Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus-A Gap We Have to Bridge: A Review

Colonoscopy is an essential diagnostic and therapeutic tool in gastroenterology, significantly impacting colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and management. Effective bowel preparation is critical for optimal visualization, directly influencing colonoscopy accuracy and patient outcomes. However, diabetic patients frequently encounter challenges achieving adequate bowel preparation, primarily due to gastroparesis, autonomic neuropathy, altered colonic motility, fluid-electrolyte imbalances, and complexities related to antihyperglycemic medication adjustments. This review aims to evaluate the current literature on bowel preparation efficacy in diabetic patients undergoing colonoscopy, assess existing guidelines from leading gastroenterological societies, and highlight the necessity for detailed, diabetes-specific recommendations. We conducted a comprehensive PubMed search identifying 20 pertinent studies, including randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, multicenter studies, cohort studies, and reviews. The findings consistently indicate diabetes as an independent predictor of inadequate bowel preparation. Furthermore, an evaluation of guidelines from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the US Multi-Society Task Force, and the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology revealed either absent or insufficiently detailed diabetes-specific recommendations. Given the rising global prevalence of diabetes and CRC, inadequate bowel preparation significantly impacts the quality of colonoscopy, adenoma detection rates, patient safety, and healthcare costs. This review underscores the urgent need for additional research focusing on tailored bowel preparation strategies for diabetic patients. Ultimately, the implementation of standardized, evidence-based protocols designed explicitly for this high-risk group is essential to enhance diagnostic efficacy, improve patient outcomes, and reduce CRC-related morbidity and mortality.

Cardiac Arrest Following GoLytely Consumption: A Potential Trigger for Hypovolemic Shock

This case report presents a rare but severe complication of polyethylene glycol (PEG) used for colonoscopic bowel preparation. A 71-year-old male developed cardiac arrest secondary to hypovolemic shock following consumption of GoLytely. Despite being hemodynamically stable prior to ingestion, the patient experienced extreme weakness, dizziness, and orthostatic hypotension post-consumption. Evaluation ruled out other causes of arrest. While serious complications from PEG are rare, this case underscores the importance of vigilance. Further investigation is warranted to elucidate the relationship between PEG use and cardiac events and to identify potential risk factors for adverse outcomes associated with bowel preparation regimens.

Oral Sulfate Solution Is as Effective as Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid in a Split Method for Bowel Preparation in Patients with Inactive Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized, Multicenter, and Single-Blind Clinical Trial

Background/Aims

Low-volume preparations for colonoscopy are gaining attention for their higher acceptability. However, the efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution (OSS) preparations in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) has not been well known. Therefore, we aimed to compare OSS and 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG+Asc) for bowel preparation in inactive UC.

Methods

A multicenter, randomized, single-blind study was conducted at six tertiary referral hospitals in Korea. Outpatients with UC who had stable disease activity were randomly allocated to the OSS group or the 2-L PEG+Asc group for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The study outcomes included treatment efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability. Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and rated as successful cleansing if the score was ≥6. Patient acceptance and tolerability were assessed using a 4-point ordinal scale. Additionally, disease activity and laboratory data before and after colonoscopy were evaluated to check for safety.

Results

The OSS and 2-L PEG+Asc groups included 92 and 93 participants, respectively. No significant between-group difference was noted in successful cleansing (OSS [96.7%] vs 2-L PEG+Asc [97.8%], p=0.64). Moreover, the safety, acceptance, and tolerability were not significantly different (all p>0.05). Furthermore, no significant changes were found in serum electrolytes or disease activity in either group.

Conclusions

OSS is effective for colonoscopy cleansing, has acceptable tolerability, and does not affect disease activity; thus, it can be used safely for bowel preparation in patients with inactive UC.

Split-dose versus day-before regimen of sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy in children: Randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) split-dose regimen is recommended as the option of choice for colon preparation before colonoscopy in children and adults. Sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (SPMC) is equally effective but better tolerated than PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in children. The aim of this study was to assess the superiority of SPMC split-dose regimen compared with SPMC day-before regimen for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy in children.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, single-blind study. Pediatric inpatients undergoing colonoscopy received SPMC either in the day-before dosing or in split dosing. Overall bowel cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and was rated as successful when BBPS was ≥6. Patient tolerability, acceptability, and compliance were recorded.

RESULTS

The rate of successful cleansing level was significantly higher in the split-dose group than in the day-before group (P < 0.001). The BBPS scores were significantly higher in the split-dose group than in the day-before group for the whole colon (P < 0.001), the right colon (P < 0.001) and transverse colon (P < 0.001). Patient acceptability was better in the split-dose group (P = 0.0003; P = 0.005). The percentage of children needing nasogastric tube placement was better in the split-dose group (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The split-dose regimen of SPMC was superior to the day-before regimen in terms of successful colon cleansing and acceptability.

Comparison of oral sodium phosphate tablets and polyethylene glycol lavage solution for colonoscopy preparation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Objective

To systematically compare the bowel cleaning ability, patient tolerance and safety of oral sodium phosphate tablets (NaPTab) and oral polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEGL) to inform clinical decision making.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and VIP databases were searched for studies that used randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the roles of NaPTab and PEGL in bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included papers. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

A total of 13 RCTs were eligible for inclusion, including 2,773 patients (1,378 and 1,395 cases in the NaPTab and PEGL groups, respectively). Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the cleansing quality of the NaPTab and PEGL groups [RR 1.02, 95% CI (0.96-1.08), P = 0.46]. The incidence of nausea was lower in the NaPTab group than in the PEGL group [RR 0.67, 95% CI (0.58-0.76), p < 0.00001]. Patients rated the taste of NaPTab higher than PEGL [RR 1.33, 95% CI (1.26-1.40), P < 0.00001]. Willingness to repeat the treatment was also higher in the NaPTab group than in the PEGL group [RR 1.52, 95% CI (1.28-1.80), P < 0.00001]. Both serum potassium and serum calcium decreased in both groups after the preparation; however, meta-analysis revealed that both minerals decreased more in the NaPTab group than in the PEGL group [MD = 0.38, 95% CI (0.13-0.62), P = 0.006 for serum potassium and MD = 0.41, 95% CI (0.04-0.77), P = 0.03 for serum calcium]. Meanwhile, serum phosphorus increased in both groups after the preparation; however, levels increased more in the NaPTab group than in the PEGL group [MD 4.51, (95% CI 2.9-6.11), P < 0.00001].

Conclusions

While NaP tablets and PEGL were shown to have a similar cleaning effect before colonoscopy, NaP tablets had improved patient tolerance. However, NaP tablets had a strong effect on serum potassium, calcium, and phosphorus levels. For patients with low potassium, low calcium, and renal insufficiency, NaP tablets should be prescribed with caution. For those at high-risk for acute phosphate nephropathy, NaP tablets should be avoided. Given the low number and quality of included studies, these conclusions will require additional verification by large high-quality studies.

Systematic review registration

10.37766/inplasy2023.5.0013, identifier: NPLASY202350013.

Preparing for Colonoscopy in People with Diabetes: A Review with Suggestions for Clinical Practice

People with diabetes have an increased risk of adverse events during the peri-colonoscopy period, including hypoglycemia, lactic acidosis, diabetic ketoacidosis and acute kidney injury. This is secondary to inadequate dietary modification, the bowel preparation and antihyperglycemic agent modification. With the availability of many new diabetes agents, endoscopists need updated guidance. This review of current literature provides a practical approach to antihyperglycemic agent modification in the context of colonoscopy preparation, as well as guidelines on dietary changes, the bowel preparation itself and glucose monitoring.

Comparing the Real-World Effectiveness of High- Versus Low-Volume Split Colonoscopy Preparations: An Experience Through the British Columbia Colon Cancer Screening Program

Background

The British Columbia Colon Screening Program (BCCSP) is a population-based colon cancer screening program. In December 2018, physicians in Vancouver, Canada agreed to switch from a low-volume split preparation to a high-volume polyethylene glycol preparation after a meta-analysis of studies suggested superiority of the higher volume preparation in achieving adequate bowel cleansing and improving adenoma detection rates.

Aims

To compare the quality of bowel preparation and neoplasia detection rates using a high-volume split preparation (HVSP) versus a low-volume split preparation (LVSP) in patients undergoing colonoscopy in the BCCSP.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing colonoscopy through the BCCSP at St. Paul’s Hospital from July 2017 to November 2018 and December 2018 to November 2019 was conducted. Inclusion criteria included age 50 to 74 and patients undergoing colonoscopy through the BCCSP. Variables collected included patient demographics and bowel preparation quality. Rates of bowel preparation and neoplasia detection were analyzed using chi-squared test.

Results

A total of 1453 colonoscopies were included, 877 in the LVSP group and 576 in the HVSP group. No statistically significant difference was noted between rates of inadequate bowel preparation (LVSP 3.6% versus HVSP 2.8%; P = 0.364). Greater rates of excellent (48.4% versus 40.1%; P = 0.002) and optimal (90.1% versus 86.5%; P = 0.041) bowel preparation were achieved with HVSP. The overall adenoma detection rate was similar between the two groups (LVSP 53.1% versus HVSP 54.0%; P = 0.074). LVSP demonstrated higher overall sessile serrated lesion detection rate (9.5% versus 5.6%; P = 0.007).

Conclusions

Compared to LVSP, HVSP was associated with an increase in excellent and optimal bowel preparations, but without an improvement in overall neoplasia detection.

Randomized clinical trial: efficacy and tolerability of two different split dose of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolytes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in hospitalized children

BACKGROUND

Eighty milliliter per kilogram of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation (BP) has been recommended, but the amount of liquid orally without nasogastric intubation is difficult to achieve. This study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two different low-volume PEG electrolyte solutions for BP in children.

METHODS

The randomized, double-blind, controlled trial enrolled 150 children aged 6-18 years undergoing colonoscopy in our center. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 60 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 60) or 40 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 40) of PEG electrolytes (PEG-ELS) 4000. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used for bowel cleansing evaluation. Primary end point was overall colon cleansing. Tolerability was also evaluated.

RESULTS

PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for both whole colon and various colonic segments. The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups. More patients considered the BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60.

CONCLUSIONS

Low volume of PEG-ELS for BP has good efficacy in bowel cleansing. PEG-ELS with 40 ml/kg volume was not inferior to that of 60 ml/kg.

IMPACT

PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for whole and various colonic segments. The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups. More patients considered BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60. This study showed that low-volume PEG-ELS monotherapy was effective in bowel cleansing and explored a possibly feasible BP method for pediatrics in China that PEG-ELS 40 was comparable to PEG-ELS 60 regimen.

Effect of physician-provided education on the quality of bowel preparation

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Inadequate bowel preparation in patients scheduled for colonoscopy is an important problem. In our study, we aimed to investigate the effect of physician-provided bowel preparation education on the quality of bowel preparation and process.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 150 outpatients who were referred to Kocaeli University Medical Faculty Hospital Gastroenterology Unit for colonoscopy between May 2019 and October 2019 were enrolled in our prospective, endoscopist-blinded study. Patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 (education group) included 73 patients who received 10 minutes of verbal information from a physician in addition to a written information form. Group 2 (control group) included 75 patients who received information from a medical secretary in addition to a written information form. During colonoscopy, the quality of bowel preparation was assessed using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS). A BBPS score = 5 was considered adequate bowel preparation. The mean BBPS score, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate and time, and procedure time were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The rate of adequate bowel preparation (BBPS score = 5) was 90.4% and 74.7% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.021). The odds ratio for having a BBPS score = 5 in the education group was 3.199 compared with the control group (95% confidence interval = 1.254-8.164; p = 0.015). The cecal intubation rates were 91.8% and 88% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p > 0.05). The cecal intubation time, procedure time, and adenoma detection rates were similar between the groups. The relationships of age, education level, sex, diabetes mellitus, medicine use, procedure time, and intraabdominal surgery with inadequate bowel preparation were analysed using a logistic regression model. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed no significant factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient education on the bowel preparation process via a physician improved the quality of bowel preparation.

Prospective single-blinded single-center randomized controlled trial of Prep Kit-C and Moviprep: Does underlying inflammatory bowel disease impact tolerability and efficacy?

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for detection of colonic disease. An optimal evaluation depends on adequate bowel cleansing. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), require frequent endoscopic assessment for both activity and dysplasia assessment. Two commonly used bowel preparations in Australia are Prep Kit-C (Pc) and Moviprep (Mp). Little is known about tolerability, efficacy and safety of split protocols of Mp and Pc in both IBD and non-IBD patients.

AIM

To primary aim was to compare the tolerability, efficacy and safety of split protocols of Mp and Pc in patients having a colonoscopy. The secondary aim was to compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of either preparation in patients with or without IBD.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to Pc or Mp bowel preparation. Patients completed a questionnaire to assess tolerability. Efficacy was assessed using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Score. Serum electrolytes and renal function were collected one week prior to colonoscopy and on the day of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Of 338 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of 168 patients randomized to Mp and 170 to Pc. The efficacy of bowel preparation (mean Ottawa Bowel Preparation Score) was similar between Mp (5.4 ± 2.4) and Pc (5.1 ± 2.1) (P = 0.3). Mean tolerability scores were similar in Mp (11.84 ± 5.4) and Pc (10.99 ± 5.2; P = 0.17). 125 patients had IBD (73 had Crohn’s Disease and 52 had Ulcerative colitis). Sixty-four IBD patients were allocated to Mp and 61 to Pc. In non-IBD patients, 104 were allocated to Mp and 109 to Pc. The mean tolerability score in the IBD group was lower than the non-IBD group (mean tolerability scores: IBD: 10.3 ± 5.1 and non-IBD: 12.0 ± 5.3; P = 0.01). IBD patients described more abdominal pain with Mp when compared with Pc; (Mp: 5.7 ± 4.4 vs Pc: 3.6 ± 2.6, P = 0.046). Serum magnesium level increased with Pc compared with Mp in all patients (mean increase in mmol/L: Mp: 0.03 ± 0.117 and Pc: 0.11 ± 0.106; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the efficacy, tolerability and safety of Mp and Pc were similar in all patients. However, patients with IBD reported lower tolerability with both preparations. Specifically, IBD patients had more abdominal pain with Mp. These results should be considered when recommending bowel preparation especially to IBD patients.

Lethal Complication From Inappropriately Prepared Polyethylene Glycol (Golytely) in a Pediatric Patient

Polyethylene glycol with electrolytes (PEG-ELS, Golytely) is a widely used osmotic solution for colonic preparation in adults who are undergoing colonoscopy or colon surgeries. In pediatric patients, It is approved for the same indications and as a treatment for severe chronic constipation. PEG-ELS has an acceptable safety profile and minimal side effects. The most common adverse effects are nausea and abdominal cramps. Golytely is known to cause minimal electrolyte disturbances with no major sequelae. A few case reports have been published describing the effect of PEG-ELS on the electrolytes.

In this report, we present a case of an inappropriate preparation of Golytely administered to a pediatric patient leading to severe electrolyte disturbances and death.

Noninferiority clinical trial comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy of sodium phosphate tablets (Quiklean®) with a polyethylene glycol/bisacodyl kit

BACKGROUND

Efficient bowel cleansing is essential for a successful colonoscopy, but the ideal cleansing agent, volume, and pharmaceutical dosage form have yet to be determined. Small-volume cleansers enhance patient compliance.

AIM

To compare the bowel cleansing efficacy of 32-tablet sodium phosphate (Quiklean®) with 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)/bisacodyl (Klean-Prep/ Dulcolax®) under identical dietary recommendations.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, noninferiority clinical trial enrolled 472 outpatients, randomized 456 subjects, and scheduled 442 subjects to undergo colonoscopy (Quiklean® = 222 and Klean-Prep/Dulcolax® = 220). After bowel preparation, a colonoscopist performed the colonoscopy with video recorded for rating. The primary efficacy endpoint was the bowel cleansing quality using the Aronchick Scale. The secondary endpoints were the bowel cleansing efficacy of three colon segments, tolerability and acceptability, safety using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale, questionnaires by subjects, and monitoring of adverse events.

RESULTS

Success rates (Excellent + Good) of the bowel cleansing quality by Aronchick Scale were 98.6% (n = 205) and 97.6% (n = 204) in the Quiklean® and Klean-Prep/Dulcolax® groups, respectively. Quiklean® demonstrated noninferiority over Klean-Prep/Dulcolax® in colon cleansing efficacy. Quicken showed better tolerability and acceptability in the overall experience (was rated as excellent; 24.0% vs 17.2%; P = 0.0016) and the taste of the study preparation (was rated as excellent, 23.1% vs 13.4%; P < 0.0001) than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax®. Safety profiles did not differ between the two groups. Our data indicate that Quiklean® is an adequate, well-tolerated bowel cleansing preparation compared with the standard comparator Klean-Prep/Dulcolax®.

CONCLUSION

Quiklean® is sodium phosphate tablets available on Taiwan's market for bowel preparation; it potentially offers patients an alternative to standard large-volume bowel preparation regimens and may, therefore, increase positive attitudes toward colonoscopies and participation rates.

Frequency of hyponatremia caused by sodium picosulfate solution when used as a bowel cleansing agent for colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of hyponatremia in patients taking Sodium Picosulfate Solution (SPS) solution for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy and to compare serum sodium levels before and after SPS.

METHODS

This interventional study was conducted at Dr. Ruth K. M. Pfau, Civil Hospital Karachi between June 2019 to November 2019. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were included in the study. All patients were given SPS. Two samples of blood for electrolytes were taken, one 30 minutes before taking SPS solution and another 30 minutes before colonoscopy. Paired sample t-test was used to determine the difference between serum sodium level before taking the colonoscopy solution and serum sodium level before colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Fifty- four patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were included. Out of the 54 patients 28 (51.9%) were males and 26 (48.1%) were females. Mean sodium levels before taking colonoscopy solution was 139.7 ±3.5 mEq/L and mean sodium level before colonoscopy was 138.9 ±3.8 mEq/L. The difference between serum sodium level before taking SPS colonoscopy solution and before colonoscopy was found to be statistically insignificant (t (53) = 1.308; p = 0.196).

CONCLUSION

No serious adverse effects were reported in any of our patients. There was no significant difference in the serum sodium level of patients undergoing colonoscopy before taking SPS bowel preparation solution and serum sodium level before colonoscopy.

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.

Split dose versus full single-dose regimen of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in pediatric colonoscopy: a pilot study of randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Previous meta-analyses in adults comparing a full single dose vs. split doses of polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution demonstrated that the split-dose group had a higher rate of successful bowel preparation. To date, no similar study in children has been conducted. Therefore, we compared the efficacy of bowel preparation between the two regimens of polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution in pediatric colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were tolerability, acceptability, and compliance.

METHODS

An investigator-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted to enroll children aged 2-18 years who underwent an elective colonoscopy at a teaching hospital between March 2018 and February 2019. Patients were randomly assigned to receive polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution as a full single dose or two split doses. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used for the efficacy (i.e. successful bowel preparation if score ≥ 6). Secondary outcomes were evaluated by using a standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 45 colonoscopies (22 in the full single-dose and 23 in the split-dose group) were performed. Mean age was 9.2 years old (SD 4.4). We noted a higher rate of successful bowel preparation in the split-dose group (95% vs. 72%, P = 0.047). Significant higher rate of willingness to repeat the same protocol (83% vs. 36%, P = 0.002) and a trend of lower rate of nausea/vomiting (39% vs. 68%, P = 0.051) in the split-dose group were found.

CONCLUSION

The split-dose regimen of polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution for bowel preparation suggests superior efficacy, potential tolerability, and acceptability as compared to the traditional full single-dose regimen.

Augmentation with pre-emptive macrogol-based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial

Background and Aim

The addition of a laxative prior to a standard bowel preparation (BP) has shown variable results in efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the BP. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of a macrogol-augmented BP (M-BP) with standard BP for routine colonoscopy in unselected patients.

Methods

Adults undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to either M-BP (one sachet of macrogol-based osmotic laxative (MBOL) twice daily for eight doses prior to standard preparation) or BP (split-dose of polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate). Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Ottawa BP scale. Risk factors for poor BP, patient satisfaction, and tolerance were recorded.

Results

This randomized trial was stopped due to futility after 14 months; at that point, 92 subjects were randomized to the study arm and 102 to the control arm. M-BP had a success rate of 71.7% (95% CI: 58.5-82.7%), while the BP had a success rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 54.9-78.8%), with a Pearson χ ² test P-value of 0.639, which exceeded the cut-off for futility (0.313). In subgroup analyses, there were statistically significant decreases in the rates of successful BP in patients taking regular opioids and regular laxatives. Both preparations were well tolerated, with no difference between groups (BP - 5.3% and M-BP - 6.6% P = 0.66).

Conclusion

The addition of MBOL prior to a standard BP in unselected subjects does not significantly improve bowel cleanliness at routine colonoscopy. The role of this laxative in patients at high risk of poor preparation warrants further investigation.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Colonoscopic Enema With Additional Oral Preparation as a Salvage for Inadequate Bowel Cleansing Before Colonoscopy

GOALS

The goal of this study was to evaluate the noninferiority of colonoscopic enema to additional oral preparation in salvage bowel cleansing for inadequate preparation for a morning colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopic enema, administering additional cathartics into the right colon through the colonoscope accessory channel, is suggested to rescue poor bowel preparation for a colonoscopy but lacking comparative study.

STUDY

In this prospective, randomized, actively-controlled, parallel group, noninferiority trial, consecutive outpatients and health checkup recipients aged from 19 to 70 years with inappropriate bowel preparation during an elective colonoscopy were enrolled to receive either a colonoscopic enema of 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) (enema group) or additional oral intake of 2 L PEG (oral group). The primary endpoint was the proportion of adequate bowel preparation evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.

RESULTS

Overall, 131 participants were randomized. Adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 53% (35/66) of the enema group, which was significantly inferior to the oral group (81.5%; 53/67) with a difference of -28.5% (95% confidence interval, -44.1, -12.9; P=0.001). The largest difference in the proportion of adequate bowel preparation was observed in the right colon (57.8% in the enema group vs. 86.9% in the oral group; P<0.001), followed by the transverse colon (85.9% vs. 98.4%; P=0.017) and the left colon (90.6% vs. 96.7%; P=0.274).

CONCLUSIONS

The colonoscopic enema of 1 L PEG was inferior to the additional oral ingestion of 2 L PEG regarding efficacy as a salvage bowel preparation in adults with inadequate bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Possible GoLytely-Associated Cardiac Arrest: A Case Report and Literature Review

PURPOSE

To report a case of sudden cardiac arrest possibly associated with the administration of GoLytely^® (polyethylene glycol 3350 and electrolytes).

SUMMARY

A 60-year-old male with a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, and coronary artery disease presented to the emergency department with complaints of constipation and lower abdominal pain over the past week, and the inability to urinate over the past day. The patient had received GoLytely as treatment to alleviate symptoms of constipation and abdominal pain. However, several hours after administration of the bowel prep solution, the patient suffered an episode of cardiac arrest. After ruling out other possible etiologies, GoLytely was suspected as a possible cause of cardiac arrest. The patient had suffered an anoxic brain injury and remained intubated and unconscious until he eventually expired, 20 days after the event.

CONCLUSION

Although GoLytely appears to be a safe agent with fewer side effects, clinicians need to be mindful of potential life-threatening adverse events following GoLytely administration and monitor patients closely during and after administration.

A comparative review of use of sulphate and phosphate salts for colonoscopy preparations and their potential for nephrotoxicity

Background and study aims  Colonoscopy is a widely used diagnostic procedure which requires prior cleansing of the bowel. Many different bowel cleansing preparations have been developed, all of which have specific advantages and disadvantages. This review compares two low-volume high-osmolarity bowel cleansing preparations, oral phosphate salts and oral sulphate salts, with a particular focus on risk of nephrotoxicity. Patients and methods  An electronic search of the Medline database was performed using the search terms "(phosphates OR sulfates) AND cathartics [MeSH Term] AND kidney" restricted to humans with a cut-off date of December 31, 2016. Results  Introduction of oral phosphate salts offered the advantage of low intake volume and low risk of bowel irritation compared to previous options. However, phosphate salts have been associated with renal toxicity (acute phosphate nephropathy [APN]), thought to arise due to perturbations of calcium and phosphate homeostasis as a consequence of increases in serum phosphate. This results in high concentrations of calcium phosphate in the distal tubule and collecting ducts of the kidney, where it may precipitate. Although APN is rare, it may lead to permanent kidney damage. For this reason, phosphate salts are contraindicated in vulnerable patient groups. As an alternative to phosphate salts, oral sulphate salts have recently been introduced. Because sulphate absorption from the intestinal tract is saturable, serum sulphate concentrations increase only minimally after ingestion. Furthermore, excretion of sulphate in the kidney is not accompanied by calcium excretion and urine calcium levels are unchanged. For these theoretical reasons, use of sulphate salts as bowel cleansing solutions is not expected to lead to calcium precipitation in the nephron. Conclusions  Oral phosphate salts are no longer recommended for routine use as bowel cleansing preparations as they carry significant risk of kidney damage and a safer alternative is available in the form of oral sulphate solutions. To date, use of sulphate salts has not been associated with elevations in serum creatinine or other markers of renal impairment, nor with clinical manifestations of kidney injury. Nonetheless, experience with sulphate salts in everyday practice is limited and physicians should be vigilant in detecting potential safety issues.

Aquanet Bowel Cleansing Device Versus Oral Sodium Picosulfate for Pre-Endoscopy Bowel Preparation: Propensity Score Analysis for Interventional Effectiveness Evaluation

Background

Colonoscopy procedures are commonly performed and have high success rates. However, poor or inadequate bowel preparation is one of the most common reasons for a repeated or failed colonoscopy. We therefore performed an observational study followed by propensity score modeling to evaluate and compare the quality of bowel preparation with the use of Aquanet bowel cleansing devices (BCDs) versus the use of oral sodium picosulfate solution.

Methods

We performed a prospective cross-sectional study to compare the quality of pre-endoscopic bowel preparation using a BCD with oral solution. Our major outcome of interest was the quality of bowel preparation as measured through the Boston bowel preparation (BBP) scale. Our main predictor was the method of bowel preparation. The bowel was prepared using either sodium picosulfate or the BCD.

Results

A total of 314 participants were part of this study. The average age of the participants was 54 years and most of the participants were females (81%). Sodium picosulfate was associated with better scores at each segment. After propensity scoring with a 1:1 match and further adjusting for the unbalanced variable (age), we found that despite the apparent superior cleansing performance of sodium picosulfate over the BCD, the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

This study reinforces previous reports regarding the quality, safety and comfort of BCDs, indicating that this technique should be considered for colonoscopy preparation. In the future, randomized controlled trials should be performed to validate these preliminary findings.

Randomized trial comparing oral sulfate solution with 4-L polyethylene glycol administered in a split dose as preparation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The present study aimed to evaluate the non-inferiority of low-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) to 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions administered in a split-dose regimen as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The safety and tolerability were also compared between the two regimens.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, single-blind, active-control, parallel group, and non-inferiority trial, consecutive outpatients and health checkup recipients aged 19-65 years undergoing elective colonoscopy were enrolled to receive OSS or 4-L PEG in a split-dose regimen. The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. The occurrence of any adverse events, acceptance, compliance, and satisfaction during bowel preparation were evaluated by participant interviews.

RESULTS

Overall, 210 participants were randomized, and 199 were administered by the study agents. Adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 98.0% (97/99) of the OSS group, which was non-inferior to the PEG group (96%; 96/100) with a difference of +2.8% (95% confidence interval; -2.8, +6.8). There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events except for abdominal pain, which was more frequent in the OSS (7.1%, 7/99) than in the PEG (1.0%, 1/100; P = 0.035) group. Acceptance, compliance, and satisfaction were significantly higher in the OSS than in the PEG group (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Split-dose OSS was non-inferior to split-dose 4-L PEG with regard to bowel preparation efficacy before colonoscopy in adult outpatients or screening colonoscopy recipients aged ≤65 years with acceptable safety and superior tolerability.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: Sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate as bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Background

An effective and tolerable bowel preparation is important to secure quality of colonoscopies. It remains unclear if sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), which is considered a tolerable bowel preparation agent, is also an effective alternative for polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium phosphate (NaP).

Aim

The aim of this article is to compare effectiveness of SPMC to PEG and NaP through assessment of quality of bowel cleansing measured by validated tools.

Methods

We searched electronic databases up to January 2015. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Two authors independently performed selection of studies, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

Results

Thirteen RCTs were included, with overall good quality, but large heterogeneity. SPMC had slightly better quality of bowel cleansing than PEG (pooled RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11). In most trials SPMC was significantly better tolerated than PEG. There were no significant differences in effectiveness or tolerability between SPMC and NaP. Side effects were similar between agents, except for dizziness (pooled RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21 in favour of PEG vs. SPMC) and vomiting (pooled RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.95 in favour of single-dose SPMC vs. split-dose).

Conclusions

SPMC is equally effective to NaP and little superior to PEG in terms of bowel cleansing. SPMC preparations were better tolerated than PEG preparations. SPMC may be considered as standard bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Development and Testing of an Automated 4-Day Text Messaging Guidance as an Aid for Improving Colonoscopy Preparation

Background

In gastroenterology a sufficient colon cleansing improves adenoma detection rate and prevents the need for preterm repeat colonoscopies due to invalid preparation. It has been shown that patient education is of major importance for improvement of colon cleansing.

Objective

Objective of this study was to assess the function of an automated text messaging (short message service, SMS)–supported colonoscopy preparation starting 4 days before colonoscopy appointment.

Methods

After preevaluation to assess mobile phone usage in the patient population for relevance of this approach, a Web-based, automated SMS text messaging system was developed, following which a single-center feasibility study at a tertiary care center was performed. Patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy were invited to participate. Patients enrolled in the study group received automated information about dietary recommendations and bowel cleansing during colonoscopy preparation. Data of outpatient colonoscopies with regular preparation procedure were used for pair matching and served as control. Primary end point was feasibility of SMS text messaging support in colonoscopy preparation assessed as stable and satisfactory function of the system. Secondary end points were quality of bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and patient satisfaction with SMS text messaging–provided information assessed by a questionnaire.

Results

Web-based SMS text messaging–supported colonoscopy preparation was successful and feasible in 19 of 20 patients. Mean (standard error of the mean, SEM) total BBPS score was slightly higher in the SMS group than in the control group (7.3, SEM 0.3 vs 6.4, SEM 0.2) and for each colonic region (left, transverse, and right colon). Patient satisfaction regarding SMS text messaging–based information was high.

Conclusions

Using SMS for colonoscopy preparation with 4 days’ guidance including dietary recommendation is a new approach to improve colonoscopy preparation. Quality of colonoscopy preparation was sufficient and patients were highly satisfied with the system during colonoscopy preparation.

Impact of bowel preparation type on the quality of colonoscopy: a multicenter community-based study

Background

High-quality bowel preparation is crucial for achieving the goals of colonoscopy. However, choosing a bowel preparation in clinical practice can be challenging because of the many formulations. This study aims to assess the impact the type of bowel preparation on the quality of colonoscopy in a community hospital setting.

Methods

A retrospective, observational study was conducted utilizing a colonoscopy screening/surveillance database in central Illinois during the period of January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2014. Patients without bowel preparation assessment were excluded from this study. Controlling for the confounders, generalized linear models were used to estimate the adjusted impact [odds ratio (OR)] of bowel preparation type on the quality of preparation (excellent, good, fair, and poor), and on the detection of advanced adenoma. The association between the time of withdrawal after insertion and the quality of preparation was also examined using a linear model.

Results

A total of 28,368 colonoscopies; half the patients were male, and the average age was 61±9 years. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) was used in the majority (70.2%) of bowel preparations, followed by sodium sulfate (21.4%), sodium phosphate (2.5%), magnesium sulfate (0.4%), and others. Compared with PEG, magnesium sulfate had a poorer quality of bowel preparations (OR=0.6, 95% CI 0.4–0.9; p<0.05), whereas the quality of bowel preparation was significantly improved by using sodium sulfate (OR=5.7, 95% CI 5.4–6.1; p<0.001) and sodium phosphate (OR=2.1, 95% CI 1.8–2.5; p<0.001). For those who had adequate bowel preparation, the better quality of preparation significantly increased the detection rate of advanced adenoma (5.0, 3.6, and 2.9% for excellent, good, and fair, respectively).

Conclusion

When possible, sodium sulfate–based preparations should be recommended in the community setting for colonoscopy because of their high quality of bowel preparation.

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.

Neostigmine Administered With MoviPrep Improves Bowel Preparation for Elective Colonoscopy in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury: A Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Poor preparation for elective colonoscopy is exceedingly common in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). This unsatisfactory outcome is likely due to long-standing difficulty with evacuation and decreased colonic motility, which may result in inadequate responses to conventional bowel preparation regimens. We determined whether the addition of neostigmine to MoviPrep before elective colonoscopy produced a higher percentage of acceptable bowel preparations in patients with SCI.

METHODS

Twenty-seven SCI subjects were prospectively randomized to 1 of 2 arms: low-volume polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage with ascorbic acid (MoviPrep) or MoviPrep plus neostigmine methylsulfate and glycopyrrolate (MoviPrep+NG); 28 able-bodied subjects received MoviPrep alone. The quality of the cleansing preparation for colonoscopy was determined by gastroenterologists "calibrated" to use the Ottawa Scoring System, with an acceptable Ottawa Score (OS) considered to be ≤3.

RESULTS

The administration of MoviPrep alone resulted in suboptimal bowel cleansing in the SCI group compared with the able-bodied group (50% vs. 89% of subjects had an acceptable OS; χ=7.94, P=0.05). However, when NG was added to MoviPrep in the SCI group, it markedly improved the quality of the bowel preparation, with 85% of patients then having an acceptable OS. The use of NG resulted in minimal bloating and distention before bowel evacuation (P=0.0005), and eye and muscle twitching; these were resolved within 1 hour after NG administration. No significant differences were noted among the preparation groups for adenoma detection rate (P=0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of MoviPrep+NG was safe, well tolerated, and an effective approach to prepare the bowel for elective colonoscopy in patients with SCI. The side effects of this preparation were significant compared with the other treatment groups but were considered mild and anticipated.

Polyethylene glycol versus sodium picosulfalte bowel preparation in the setting of a colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy is an important predictor of colonoscopy quality.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the difference in terms of effectiveness between different existing colon cleansing products in the setting of a colorectal cancer screening program.

METHODS

The records of consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at the Montreal General Hospital (Montreal, Quebec) between April 2013 and April 2014 were retrospectively extracted from a dedicated electronic digestive endoscopic institutional database.

RESULTS

Overall, 2867 charts of patients undergoing colonoscopy were assessed, of which 1130 colonoscopies were performed in a screening setting; patients had adequate bowel preparation in 90%. Quality of preparation was documented in only 61%. Bowel preparation was worse in patients receiving sodium picosulfate (PICO) alone compared with polyethylene glycol, in a screening setting (OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.2 to 0.6]). Regardless of the preparation type, the odds of achieving adequate quality cleansing was 6.6 for patients receiving a split-dose regimen (OR 6.6 [95% CI 2.1 to 21.1]). In multivariable analyses, clinical variables associated with inadequate bowel preparation in combined population were use of PICO, a nonsplit regimen and inpatient status. The polyp detection rate was very high (45.6%) and was correlated with withdrawal time.

CONCLUSION

Preparation quality needs to be more consistently included in the colonoscopy report. Split-dose regimens increased the quality of colon cleansing across all types of preparations and should be the preferred method of administration. Polyethylene glycol alone provided better bowel cleansing efficacy than PICO in a screening setting but PICO remains an alternative in association with an adjuvant.

Split-Dose Preparations Are Superior to Day-Before Bowel Cleansing Regimens: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are different regimens of preparing the colon for colonoscopy, including polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate, picosulfate, or oral sulfate solutions. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of split-dose vs other colon preparation regimens, the optimal products for use, and the most effective preparation volumes.

METHODS

We performed systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of knowledge databases, from January 1980 to March 2014, for published results from randomized trials that assessed split-dose regimens vs day-before colonoscopy preparation. We excluded studies that included pediatric or hospitalized patients, or patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The primary outcome was efficacy of bowel cleansing. Secondary outcomes included side effects or complications, outcomes of procedures, patients' willingness to repeat the procedure, and the amount of time required for patients to resume daily activities.

RESULTS

We identified 47 trials that fulfilled our inclusion criteria (n = 13,487 patients). Split-dose preparations provided significantly better colon cleansing than day-before preparations (odds ratio [OR], 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-3.39), as well as day-before preparations with PEG (OR, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-4.63), sodium phosphate (OR, 9.34; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-41.11), or picosulfate (OR, 3.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-6.45). PEG split-dose preparations of 3 L or more yielded greater bowel cleanliness than lower-volume split-dose regimens (OR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.46), but only in intention-to-treat analysis. A higher proportion of patients were willing to repeat split-dose vs day-before cleansing (OR, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.46), and low-volume split-dose preparations vs high-volume split-dose preparation (OR, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-11.10). There were no differences between preparations in other secondary outcome measures. However, there was variation among studies in definitions and main and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on meta-analysis, split-dose regimens increase the quality of colon cleansing and are preferred by patients compared with day-before preparations. Additional research is required to evaluate oral sulfate solution-based and PEG low-volume regimens further.

Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: what are the predictors of an inadequate preparation?

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study evaluates factors that are associated with an inadequate bowel preparation.

METHODS

A chart review was performed on 2,101 patients who underwent colonoscopy. The quality of preparation was classified as adequate or inadequate. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses identified factors associated with inadequate preparations.

RESULTS

A total of 91.5% of preparations were adequate. Standard preparations using polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution and sodium picosulfate alone were 91.1% adequate. Regimens with adjuncts were 91.9% adequate. Factors that predicted an inadequate preparation include the following: stroke/dementia (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6 to 7.7, P = .002), opioids (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.6, P = .02), male sex (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.9, P = .000), calcium channel blockers (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.3, P = .03), and antidepressants (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.7, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors are associated with inadequate preparations. Adjuncts do not improve preparation quality. The effect of patient education on preparation quality is an area for further research.

Effects of Bowel Preparation and Fluid Restriction in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Patients

OBJECTIVE

In Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) patients, preoperative bowel preparation and intraoperative fluid restriction may cause dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. In these patients, laboratory results that are considered "normal" in the pre-anaesthesia clinic may be misleading, and cardiac arrhythmia due to hypokalaemia and hypocalcaemia, as well as problems, such as prolonged non-depolarising blockade and delayed recovery from anaesthesia, may be observed during anaesthesia practice. In this study, we aimed to determine these disturbances by comparing the preoperative (T1) laboratory values with those at the beginning of the operation (T2) and at the 6(th) hour of the operation (T3) and values at discharge.

METHODS

This prospective study comprised 49 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II patients. Bowel preparation was made with a rectal enema (NaP) twice in 12 hours and with one single dose of oral laxative soda (NaP). During surgery, 1 mL kg(-1) h(-1) 0.09% NaCl and 1 mL kg(-1) h(-1) 6% HES 200/05 infusions were applied.

RESULTS

The potassium level at T2 was significantly lower than at T1 and T3. The calcium levels at T2 and T3 were significantly lower than at T1, and the level at T3 was significantly lower than at T2. The creatinine level at T3 was significantly higher than at T1 and T2.

CONCLUSION

Although there were no severe increases or decreases in laboratory test values due to bowel preparation and fluid restriction in RARP operations, which reflected on the clinical outcome in this ASA I-II patient group, these changes may be important in critically ill or ASA III-IV patients.

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.

Acute hyponatremia with seizure and mental change after oral sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate bowel preparation

Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (Picolight Powder), which is used as a bowel preparation for the colon and the rectum, can cause a severe electrolyte imbalance like hyponatremia. When hyponatremia gets severe or occurs rapidly, it can lead to death due to associated complications. We have experienced a case of hyponatremia associated with seizure and loss of consciousness in a 76-year-old woman, who took sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy. She was taking thiazide and synthroid for the treatment of hypertension and hypothyroidism, respectively, and she had other underlying medical conditions such as a history of seizure and dementia. Following the diagnosis of hyponatremia, we used an intravenous injection of 3% NaCl to normalize the sodium level in her serum, and her associated symptoms soon disappeared.

Polyethylene glycol vs sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate for colonoscopy preparation

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Polyethylene glycol-based electrolyte solutions (PEG-ELS) and the combination of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) are commonly used bowel preparation agents. The aim of the present study was to compare the two agents with regard to cleansing efficacy and tolerance among individuals scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 368 colonoscopy outpatients at three Norwegian hospitals were randomized to bowel lavage with either PEG-ELS or SPMC. Compliance and patient tolerance were evaluated using a patient questionnaire. Bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPS), a validated scoring system with scores between 0 (best) and 14.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the cleansing quality between the PEG-ELS and SPMC groups (median OBPS 5.0 in both groups). The group that received SPMC reported better overall patient tolerance than the PEG-ELS group (72.6 % vs 59.0 % reporting no or slight discomfort, P < 0.01). Compliance with the recommended total fluid intake (4 L) was better in the SPMC group than in the PEG-ELS group (94.2 % vs 81.2 % respectively, P < 0.01); moreover, the polyp detection rate was superior (34.3 % vs 23.3 %, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

PEG-ELS and SPMC are equally effective in cleansing efficacy, but SPMC was better tolerated by patients and resulted in superior patient compliance and polyp detection rate.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01624454.

1-day bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol 3350 is as effective and safe as a 3-day preparation for colonoscopy in children

BACKGROUND

Polyethylene Glycol 3350 (Miralax®) without electrolytes is commonly used for 3-4 days as bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children. One-day preparation has been anecdotally reported to be effective but there are few published prospective studies comparing the safety and efficacy of one-day preparation with that of three-day preparation. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of a one-day bowel preparation with Miralax® with that of a three-day preparation for colonoscopy in children.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized controlled trial with children age 2-21 yrs. undergoing elective colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive Miralax® for either one or three days. Children with known electrolyte disturbances, dehydration, fecal impaction, metabolic or renal disease were excluded. A metabolic panel was monitored before and after bowel preparation. Subjects reported the tolerability and side effects of Miralax® via a survey. Effectiveness of the bowel preparation was assessed using a stool diary and a bowel cleansing scale during colonoscopy.

RESULTS

32 subjects were enrolled; 18 received one-day bowel preparation and 14 received 3-day preparation. There were no differences between the groups in efficacy of bowel preparation based on colonoscopic grading or the safety of the preparation. One-day preparation was as well tolerated as three-day preparation.

CONCLUSION

Miralax® used one day as bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy in children is safe, effective and well tolerated. Physicians should consider offering a one-day option for bowel preparation, which would allow children to miss fewer days of school prior to colonoscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02174497. Date of Registration: 02 May, 2014 URL of register: clinicaltrials.gov.

Bowel preparations for colonoscopy: an RCT

BACKGROUND

The ideal preparation regimen for pediatric colonoscopy remains elusive, and available preparations continue to represent a challenge for children. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptance of 4 methods of bowel cleansing before colonoscopy in children.

METHODS

This randomized, investigator-blinded, noninferiority trial enrolled all children aged 2 to 18 years undergoing elective colonoscopy in a referral center for pediatric gastroenterology. Patients were randomly assigned to receive polyethylene glycol (PEG) 4000 with simethicon (PEG-ELS group) or PEG-4000 with citrates and simethicone plus bisacodyl (PEG-CS+Bisacodyl group), or PEG 3350 with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc group), or sodium picosulfate plus magnesium oxide and citric acid (NaPico+MgCit group). Bowel cleansing was evaluated according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. The primary end point was overall colon cleansing. Tolerability, acceptability, and compliance were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-nine patients were randomly allocated to the 4 groups. In the per-protocol analysis, PEG-CS+Bisacodyl, PEG-Asc, and NaPico+MgCit were noninferior to PEG-ELS in bowel-cleansing efficacy of both the whole colon (P = .910) and colonic segments. No serious adverse events occurred in any group. Rates of tolerability, acceptability, and compliance were significantly higher in the NaPico+MgCit group.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-volume PEG preparations (PEG-CS+Bisacodyl, PEG-Asc) and NaPico+MgCit are noninferior to PEG-ELS in children, representing an attractive alternative to high-volume regimens in clinical practice. Because of the higher tolerability and acceptability profile, NaPico+MgCit would appear as the most suitable regimen for bowel preparation in children.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid versus standard-volume polyethylene glycol solution as bowel preparations for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Standard-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) gut lavage solutions are safe and effective, but they require the consumption of large volumes of fluid. A new lower-volume solution of PEG plus ascorbic acid has been used recently as a preparation for colonoscopy.

AIM

A meta-analysis was performed to compare the performance of low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid with standard-volume PEG as bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

STUDY

Electronic and manual searches were performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the performance of low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid with standard-volume PEG as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. After a methodological quality assessment and data extraction, the pooled estimates of bowel preparation efficacy during bowel cleansing, compliance with preparation, willingness to repeat the same preparation, and the side effects were calculated. We calculated pooled estimates of odds ratios (OR) by fixed- and/or random-effects models. We also assessed heterogeneity among studies and the publication bias.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were identified for analysis. The pooled OR for preparation efficacy during bowel cleansing and for compliance with preparation for low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid were 1.08 (95% CI = 0.98-1.28, P = 0.34) and 2.23 (95% CI = 1.67-2.98, P<0.00001), respectively, compared with those for standard-volume PEG. The side effects of vomiting and nausea for low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid were reduced relative to standard-volume PEG. There was no significant publication bias, according to a funnel plot.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid gut lavage achieved non-inferior efficacy for bowel cleansing, is more acceptable to patients, and has fewer side effects than standard-volume PEG as a bowel preparation method for colonoscopy.

Randomized trial of 2-L polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid versus 4-L polyethylene glycol as bowel cleansing for colonoscopy in an optimal setting

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Prior studies have reported 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid (PEG + Asc) is an effective alternative to standard 4-L PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy, but they are limited because of some confounders. Therefore, we compared the efficacy, patient compliance, satisfaction, and safety of 2-L PEG + Asc versus 4-L PEG for bowel cleansing in optimal preparation strategies.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, single-blind trial, consenting outpatients were randomly assigned to one of two arms. All colonoscopies were scheduled in the morning and cleansing solutions were administered as a split-dose regimen. Bowel-cleansing efficacy in three different segments was measured on a five-point scale with four-point overall grading. Patients' opinions of the preparation regimens were obtained by questionnaire.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the 2-L PEG + Asc (159/163; 97.5%) and 4-L PEG (162/164; 98.8%) with respect to the overall success of bowel cleansing (mean difference = -1.3 [-4.1-∞]). Patient compliance, acceptability, and satisfaction were better in the 2-L PEG + Asc arm than the 4-L PEG arm (P < 0.05). Additionally, the incidence of side effects was lower in the 2-L PEG + Asc than the 4-L PEG (overall, 57.7% vs 73.2%, P < 0.05). However, no significant difference was seen in patients' rating of taste.

CONCLUSIONS

In an optimal preparation setting, 2-L PEG + Asc has equal efficacy as a bowel cleanser prior to colonoscopy as 4-L PEG, with the advantages of better patient compliance, satisfaction, and safety.

Endoscopy reporting standards

OBJECTIVES

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently published consensus recommendations for safety and quality indicators in digestive endoscopy. The present article focuses specifically on the identification of key elements that should be found in all electronic endoscopy reports detailing recommendations adopted by the CAG consensus group.

METHODS

A committee of nine individuals steered the CAG Safety and Quality Indicators in Endoscopy Consensus Group, which had a total membership of 35 voting individuals with knowledge on the subject relating to endoscopic services. A comprehensive literature search was performed with regard to the key elements that should be found in an electronic endoscopy report. A task force reviewed all published, full-text, adult and human studies in French or English.

RESULTS

Components to be entered into the standardized report include identification of procedure, timing, procedural personnel, patient demographics and history, indication(s) for procedure, comorbidities, type of bowel preparation, consent for the procedure, pre-endoscopic administration of medications, type and dose of sedation used, extent and completeness of examination, quality of bowel preparation, relevant findings and pertinent negatives, adverse events and resulting interventions, patient comfort, diagnoses, endoscopic interventions performed, details of pathology specimens, details of follow-up arrangements, appended pathology report(s) and, when available, management recommendations. Summary information should be provided to the patient or family.

CONCLUSION

Continuous quality improvement should be the responsibility of every endoscopist and endoscopy facility to ensure improved patient care. Appropriate documentation of endoscopic procedures is a critical component of such activities.

A prospective study of bowel preparation for colonoscopy with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution versus sodium phosphate in Lynch syndrome: a randomized trial

Lynch gene carriers undergo regular surveillance colonoscopies. Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG) is routinely prescribed for bowel cleansing, but often poorly tolerated by patients. Sodium phosphate (NaP) may be an alternative. Prospective and random comparison of bowel preparation with PEG and NaP on colon cleansing and patients' acceptance. Patients, who previously underwent a colonoscopy, were invited to participate and randomly assigned to either PEG or NaP. They were asked to fill in a questionnaire about preparation tolerability and future preferences. The endoscopist filled out a report about the quality of colon cleansing. 125 Patients were included in the study. Nine (7%) were excluded because of missing data. The remaining 116 patients (53 PEG and 63 NaP) were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. Before colonoscopy 20 (38%) patients using PEG experienced the preparation almost intolerable, in contrast to 7(11%) of those using NaP (P = 0.001). Eleven patients in the PEG group and 48 in the NaP group would prefer NaP in the future. The colonoscopy was poorly tolerated in 17% of the individuals in both groups (P = 0.963). The endoscopist observed a more than 75% clean colon in 83% of patients on PEG and in 71% of patients on NaP (P = 0.076), however the coecum (P = 0.025) and ascending colon was cleaner after PEG. Lynch patients tolerated NaP better and preferred this formula for future bowel preparation. Colon cleansing was suboptimal with both treatments with a tendency towards a cleaner proximal colon with PEG.

Factors influencing quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Recent technological advances in colonoscopy have led to improvements in both image enhancement and procedural performance. However, the utility of these technological advancements remain dependent on the quality of bowel preparation during colonoscopy. Poor bowel preparation has been shown to be associated with lower quality indicators of colonoscopy performance, such as reduced cecal intubation rates, increased patient discomfort and lower adenoma detection. The most popular bowel preparation regimes currently used are based on either Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte, a non-absorbable solution, or aqueous sodium phosphate, a low-volume hyperosmotic solution. Statements from various international societies and several reviews have suggested that the efficacy of bowel preparation regimes based on both purgatives are similar, although patients’ compliance with these regimes may differ somewhat. Many studies have now shown that factors other than the type of bowel preparation regime used, can influence the quality of bowel preparation among adult patients undergoing colonoscopy. These factors can be broadly categorized as either patient-related or procedure-related. Studies from both Asia and the West have identified patient-related factors such as an increased age, male gender, presence of co-morbidity and socio-economic status of patients to be associated with poor bowel preparation among adults undergoing routine out-patient colonoscopy. Additionally, procedure-related factors such as adherence to bowel preparation instructions, timing of bowel purgative administration and appointment waiting times for colonoscopy are recognized to influence the quality of colon cleansing. Knowledge of these factors should aid clinicians in modifying bowel preparation regimes accordingly, such that the quality of colonoscopy performance and delivery of service to patients can be optimised.

Colonoscopy preparation: polyethylene glycol with Gatorade is as safe and efficacious as four liters of polyethylene glycol with balanced electrolytes

BACKGROUND

Four liters of polyethylene glycol 3350 (PEG) with balanced electrolytes for colonoscopy preparation has had poor acceptance. Another approach is the use of electrolyte-free PEG combined with 1.9 L of Gatorade. Despite its widespread use, there are no data on metabolic safety and minimal data on efficacy. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and electrolyte safety of these two PEG-based preparations.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority trial. Patients were randomized to 238 g PEG + 1.9 L Gatorade or 4 L of PEG-ELS containing 236 g PEG. Split dosing was not performed. On procedure day blood was drawn for basic chemistries. The primary outcome was preparation quality from procedure photos using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.

RESULTS

We randomized 136 patients (66 PEG + Gatorade, 70 PEG-ELS). There were no differences in preparation scores between the two agents in the ITT analysis (7.2 ± 1.9 for PEG-ELS and 7.0 ± 2.1 for PEG + Gatorade; p = 0.45). BBPS scores were identical for those who completed the preparation and dietary instructions as directed (7.4 ± 1.7 for PEG-ELS, and 7.4 ± 1.8 for PEG + Gatorade; p = 0.98). There were no statistical differences in serum electrolytes between the two preparations. Patients who received PEG + Gatorade gave higher overall satisfaction scores for the preparation experience (p = 0.001), and had fewer adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of 238 g PEG + 1.9 L Gatorade appears to be safe, better tolerated, and non-inferior to 4 L PEG-ELS. This preparation may be especially useful for patients who previously tolerated PEG-ELS poorly.

Fast-track pathways in colorectal surgery

Enhanced recovery after surgery or "fast-track" pathways are a multimodal approach to the perioperative management of patients undergoing colorectal surgery designed to improve the overall quality of care. These pathways use existing evidence to streamline and standardize the perioperative management of patients to improve pain management, speed intestinal recovery, and ultimately facilitate a more rapid hospital discharge, thus minimizing complications, decreasing the use of hospital resources and health care costs, and improving overall patient care and satisfaction. Fast-track protocols are safe for patients and offer improvement in intestinal recovery and hospital discharge.

Emergency do not consume/do not use concentrations for blended phosphates in drinking water

The U.S. Congress [PL 107–188] amended the Safe Drinking Water Act and required each community water system serving more than 3,000 people to conduct vulnerability assessments. These assessments address potential circumstances that could compromise the safety and reliability of municipal water. The present evaluation concerns the concentrations of the blended phosphates (also known as polyphosphates, condensed complex phosphates, polyphosphate glassy balls, and pyrophosphates) intended to aid regulatory agencies in decisions to avoid contact with affected water. Polyphosphates are direct food additives and they are used to treat municipal drinking water, but depending upon the concentration and duration of exposure these substances can induce chemical burns. Ingested polyphosphates are degraded by phosphatase enzymes to monophosphates, substances that are over-the-counter bowel purgatives. High oral doses of the monophosphates can induce transient hyperphosphatemia in older and susceptible young people, which can lead to acute phosphate nephropathy. In some patients, the condition is fatal. Based on the acute diarrhea after the ingestion of a single oral dose of monobasic (NaH2PO4) and dibasic (Na2HPO4) monophosphates in adults, a do not consume concentration of 600 mg PO4/L can be derived. Based on mild local irritation after topical application of 1.0% sodium metaphosphate [(NaPO3)6 • H2O] to intact skin of sensitive volunteers, a do not use concentration of 8,000 mg PO4/L can be assigned. Given the lack of eye irritation in rabbits after direct instillation of 0.2% (NaPO3)6 • H2O, an acute ocular contact limit of 50 mg PO4/L serves as the overall do not use level.

Colonoscopy and colorectal cancer screening in adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: review of a series of cases and recommendations for examination

Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) frequently have comorbidities that might interfere with colonoscopy preparation and examination. In this article, the authors review their experience with colonoscopies performed from 2002 through 2010 on adults with IDD at a state institution to evaluate quality and safety of examinations and to formulate a plan to improve quality. In addition to IDD, these individuals had associated comorbidities, including digestive motility disorders and epilepsy. Results were compared with examinations performed in a random group of 40 adults without IDD examined between 2004 and 2008. The authors discovered a high rate of colonoscopy preparation failure and failed examinations in the IDD group. Preparation complications were also noted. The authors recommend careful preoperative evaluation of individuals with IDD and limiting colonoscopy to individuals who are able to tolerate preparation and comply with hydration.

A prospective audit of the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of low-volume polyethylene glycol (2 L) versus standard volume polyethylene glycol (4 L) versus magnesium citrate plus stimulant laxative as bowel preparation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

High-quality video colonoscopy requires adequate preparation of the bowel to ensure both adequate procedure completion rates and polyp detection rates. We sought to examine our practice to determine which bowel preparation cleansed most effectively in our patients.

AIM

A prospective audit of the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of low-volume polyethylene glycol (2-L Moviprep; Norgine Pharmaceuticals) versus standard volume polyethylene glycol (4-L KleanPrep; Norgine Pharmaceuticals) versus magnesium citrate (Citramag; Sanochemia UK Ltd.) plus stimulant laxative as bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

SETTING

District General Hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients attending for day case colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall cleansing grades of preparations used: patient compliance, taste, and acceptability.

METHODS

A prospective audit of patient experience of taking bowel preparation and blinded colonic scoring assessment of bowel cleansing of each of the tested regimes.

RESULTS

A total of 258 (female,138; 53.5%) patients were recruited, 91 in the KleanPrep group (F:45, 49.5%), 86 patients in the Moviprep group (female, 45; 52.3%), and 81 in the Senna/Citramag group (female, 44; 54.3%). Significantly more patients were unable to take the prescribed dose of KleanPrep when compared with the other 2 regimes (19.6%; P<0.0001 vs. Moviprep; P<0.0001 vs. Senna/Citramag). A total of 45.65% of patients reported KleanPrep as tasting unpleasant. This was significantly more than both Moviprep (10.47%; P=0.008) and Senna/Citramag (9.88%; P<0.0001). The overall cleansing efficacy across the 3 groups (those with grades A or B) was 73.9%, 74.5%, and 86.5% for KleanPrep, Moviprep, and Senna/Citramag, respectively. In this series Senna/Citramag proved significantly better at bowel cleansing than KleanPrep (P<0.05) and it showed a trend toward better cleansing when compared with Moviprep (P=0.08).

LIMITATIONS

Nonrandomized trial. Split-dosing regime for morning and afternoon lists may have confounded results.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, low-volume PEG (Moviprep) and Senna/Citramag combination were better tolerated than large volume PEG with Senna/Citramag providing superior mucosal cleansing.