Overall acceptability and efficacy of commonly used bowel preparations for colonoscopy in Italian clinical practice. A multicentre prospective study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The recent enormous increase in colonoscopy demand prompted this multicentre observational study assessing overall acceptability and efficacy of commonly used bowel preparations in Italian clinical practice.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were recruited from 9 major gastroenterological centres in Italy. Each patient evaluated overall acceptability of the bowel cleansing preparation through a 0-100mm Visual Analogue Scale. The Visual Analogue Scale score was dichotomized by a median split: 80-100 (high acceptability) vs. 0-79 (low acceptability). Bowel cleansing was assessed through a validated scale. The influence of potential individual determinants on patients' acceptability and cleansing efficacy of the bowel preparations was determined by multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

599 evaluable patients were enrolled; 57.3% received 4L-PEG preparations, 29.5% 2L-PEG preparations and 13.2% 2-glasses-solutions (Na-phosphate/Mg-citrate/Na-picosulphate-containing preparations). Overall acceptability was significantly higher for 2L-PEG and 2-glasses solutions than 4L-PEG (adjusted odds ratio, 4.72; and adjusted odds ratio 2.07, respectively). Successful bowel cleansing achieved with 4L-PEG (85.9%) was similar to 2L-PEG (85.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.82) and significantly higher than 2-glasses solutions (69.6%; adjusted odds ratio 0.34 vs. 4L-PEG). Split regimen, lower total preparation volume and colonoscopy reason (periodical control vs. 1st procedure) were significantly associated with high acceptability. Age ≥60 years, dissatisfaction with the preparation taken, and ≤4/week bowel movements were major determinants of a poor bowel cleansing.

CONCLUSIONS

2L-PEG and 4L-PEG preparations provide the most effective bowel cleansing for colonoscopy in clinical practice, with a significantly higher acceptability for 2L-PEG preparations.

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.

Randomized Trial of Gatorade/Polyethylene Glycol With or Without Bisacodyl and NuLYTELY for Colonoscopy Preparation

OBJECTIVES:

We assessed the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of a new preparation of Gatorade and polyethylene glycol (PEG) for colonoscopy with or without bisacodyl compared with NuLYTELY.

METHODS:

We performed an investigator-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of 64 oz of Gatorade and 306 g of PEG (G/PEG) with or without 10 mg of bisacodyl and NuLYTELY. A total of 600 outpatients consumed their preparation the day before a morning colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was colon cleanliness assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Tolerability was assessed using a subject questionnaire, and safety was assessed from a basic metabolic profile drawn before the colonoscopy.

RESULTS:

Adding bisacodyl to G/PEG caused more abdominal bloating/cramps (P<0.01) and did not result in a cleaner colon (P=0.66) compared with G/PEG without bisacodyl. The BBPS scores in both the G/PEG arms and NuLYTELY arm were not significantly different (P=0.19). Compared with subjects in the NuLYTELY arm, subjects in the G/PEG without bisacodyl arm had less nausea (P<0.04), vomiting (P<0.02), abdominal pain (P<0.02), bloating (P<0.005), difficulty drinking the liquid (P<0.0001), and found the overall preparation easier to tolerate (P<0.0001). Subjects in the combined G/PEG arms had a lower serum sodium (P<0.0007), chloride (P<0.007), and BUN (P<0.0001) levels than those in the NuLYTELY arm, but this did not cause any clinical symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS:

Bisacodyl added to G/PEG for colon lavage caused more side effects and did not result in a cleaner colon. The G/PEG preparations cleansed the colon as well as NuLYTELY, were far better tolerated, and were equally safe.