Bowel preparation using 2-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen plus lubiprostone versus 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen: a randomized controlled trial

Optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy: consensus recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Optimizing Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy: Consensus Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Optimizing Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy: Consensus Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Comparative efficacy of different bowel preparations for colonoscopy: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The quality of a colonoscopy is heavily reliant on the effectiveness of bowel cleansing. Various cleansing solutions are currently available, but their comparative efficacy remains uncertain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the performance of different bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of different bowel preparations. The primary outcome was cleansing success (CS), and the secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR).

RESULTS

On network meta-analysis for CS (22 RCTs, 7179 patients, 14 bowel preparations), 2 L PEG + simethicone (RR = 1.25 [95 %CI = 1.13-1.37]), 2 L PEG + lactulose (RR = 1.22 [95 %CI = 1.10-1.38]) and 1 L PEG + ascorbate (ASC) (RR = 1.03 [95 %CI = 1.01-1.06]) were significantly superior to 2 L PEG + ASC. Overall, 2 L PEG + lactulose resulted as the best product (SUCRA 0.94), followed by 2 L PEG + simethicone (SUCRA 0.93). On network meta-analysis for ADR (17 RCTs, 6639 patients, 11 bowel preparations), only 2 L PEG + simethicone (RR = 1.60 [95 %CI = 1.05-2.43]) resulted significantly superior to 2 L PEG + ASC.

CONCLUSIONS

2 L PEG + simethicone, 2 L PEG + lactulose, and 1 L PEG + ASC seemed to provide high rates of CS, albeit only 2 L PEG + simethicone was associated with significantly higher ADR. Consequently, these products should be preferred for bowel preparation of colonoscopy. Further randomized studies with adequate sample sizes are needed for a more accurate comparison of these products on ADR.

Operation sequence of bidirectional endoscopy with topical anesthesia affected colonoscopy performance: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The operation sequence of bidirectional endoscopy with topical anesthesia varies among endoscopists, which interferes with clinical procedure. The study aimed to investigate the influence of different operation sequences on the outcomes of quality indicators and improve bidirectional endoscopy performance.

METHODS

A randomized trial was conducted at the affiliated hospital of a medical university in China. Outpatients who initially underwent bidirectional endoscopy with topical anesthesia were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomized to either the colonoscopy-first group or the esophagogastroduodenoscopy-first group. Dyclonine hydrochloride mucilage and oxybuprocaine hydrochloride gel were administered for topical anesthesia. After finishing the previous process, the subsequent one was performed immediately. Quality indicators of esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Analyzing 395 combined procedures, the cecal intubation rate, discomfort score during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, examination score of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and colorectal polyp detection rate were similar between the two groups. The colonoscopy-first group had lower colonic spasm incidence (66.0% vs. 30.3%, p < 0.001), shorter median cecal intubation time (254 s vs. 211 s, p < 0.001), and higher colonoscopy comfort rate (72.5% vs. 85.6%, p < 0.001) compared with the esophagogastroduodenoscopy-first group. Operation sequence significantly affected the incidence of colonic spasm (OR 4.739, 95%CI 3.054-7.352, p = 0.000), which correlated with cecal intubation time (r = 0.196, p < 0.001) and patient discomfort score (r = 0.136, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

In bidirectional endoscopy with topical anesthesia, performing colonoscopy first may improve colonoscopy performance without affecting esophagogastroduodenoscopy examination. The study was registered prior to conducting the research in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.chictr.org.cn ) on November 7, 2023 with the trial identification number ChiCTR2300077408.

Efficacy of Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Powder Combined With Linaclotide for Colon Cleansing in Patients With Chronic Constipation Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Multicenter, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Constipation is an independent risk factor for poor bowel preparation. This study aimed to evaluate the bowel cleansing efficacy and safety of polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with linaclotide (lin) for colonoscopy in patients with chronic constipation (CC).

METHODS

This single-blinded, randomized, controlled, and multicenter study was conducted from July 2021 to December 2022 at 7 hospitals. Patients with CC who underwent colonoscopies were enrolled and randomly assigned to 4 groups with split-PEG regimens: 4L-PEG group, 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group, 3L-PEG+1d-Lin group, and 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group. The primary outcome was rates of adequate bowel preparation, defined as a total BBPS score ≥6 and a score ≥2 for each segment. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, sleep quality, willingness to repeat the colonoscopy, adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate.

RESULTS

Five hundred two patients were enrolled. The rates of adequate bowel preparation (80.0% vs 60.3%, P < 0.001; 84.4% vs 60.3%, P < 0.001) and the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores (6.90 ± 1.28 vs 6.00 ± 1.61, P < 0.001; 7.03 ± 1.24 vs 6.00 ± 1.61, P < 0.01) in the 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group and the 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group were superior to that in the 4L-PEG group. Compared with the 4L-PEG group, the 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group (66.7% vs 81.7%, P = 0.008) and the 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group (75.0% vs 81.7%, P = 0.224) had a lower percentage of mild adverse events. No statistically significant difference in willingness to repeat the colonoscopy, sleep quality, polyp detection rate, or adenoma detection rate was observed among groups.

DISCUSSION

PEG combined with linaclotide might be an effective method for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in patients with CC.

Establishment of a risk prediction model for bowel preparation failure prior to colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the factors that contribute to the failure of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy and to develop a risk prediction model.

METHODS

A total of 1115 outpatients were included. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: the modeling group (669 patients) and the validation group (446 patients). In the modeling group, patients were further divided into two groups based on their success and failure in bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. A logistic regression analysis model was used to determine the risk factors of bowel preparation failure, which was subsequently visualized using an alignment diagram.

RESULTS

After controlling for relevant confounders, multifactorial logistic regression results showed that age ≥ 60 years (OR = 2.246), male (OR = 2.449), body mass index ≥ 24 (OR = 2.311), smoking (OR = 2.467), chronic constipation (OR = 5.199), diabetes mellitus (OR = 5.396) and history of colorectal surgery (OR = 5.170) were influencing factors of bowel preparation failure. The area under the ROC curve was 0.732 in the modeling group and 0.713 in the validation group. According to the calibration plot, the predictive effect of the model and the actual results were in good agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Age ≥ 60 years, male, body mass index ≥ 24, smoking, chronic constipation, diabetes mellitus, and history of colorectal surgery are independent risk factors for bowel preparation failure. The established prediction model has a good predictive efficacy and can be used as a simple and effective tool for screening patients at high risk for bowel preparation failure.

The safety and effects of high- and low-volume polyethylene glycol bowel preparation methods before colonoscopy on bowel cleanliness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Although both high- and low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) are widely used in intestinal preparation before colonoscopy, there is still controversy over the superiority of their cleaning effects. This meta-analysis sought to explore the safety and effects of high-volume PEG solution and low-volume PEG mixed solution on intestinal cleanliness before colonoscopy.

Methods

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to retrieve relevant articles on the effects of high- and low-volume PEG mixture solutions on intestinal cleanliness from the inception of the databases to October 15, 2022. Two independent researchers screened the literature according to the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and extracted the required data separately. A bias risk assessment was conducted for each study using the relevant tools in the Cochrane Handbook. The included data were subjected to a meta-analysis using R 4.2.1 software.

Results

This article includes a total of 15 studies involving a total of 5,847 patients. There was no difference in the cleanliness score, qualified rate of intestinal cleanliness and patient compliance between the high- and low-volume group. The patients in the low-volume PEG mixed solution group had a higher repeat willingness bowel cleansing rate than those in the high-volume PEG group [risk ratio (RR) =0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62-0.82, P<0.01]. Compared with the low-volume group, the incidence of adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain increased in the high-volume group (RR =1.38, 95% CI: 1.22-1.56, P<0.01; RR =1.79, 95% CI: 1.41-2.27, P<0.01; RR =1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.08, P<0.01).

Conclusions

In the pre-colonoscopy preparation method for patients, although the high-volume PEG and low-volume PEG mixed regimen have similar effects on intestinal cleanliness, the low-volume mixed regimen has a higher willingness to repeat and a lower incidence of adverse reactions. In clinical practice, considering patient compliance and safety, a low-volume mixed regimen may be a more optimal option.