Bowel Preparation for a Better Colonoscopy Using Polyethylene Glycol or C-lax: A Double Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Comparison of the Efficacy of Diluted Polyethylene Glycol and Low-Density (0.1% w/v) Barium Sulfate Suspension for CT Enterography

PURPOSE

To compare small bowel distension and side effects between a diluted polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution and a low-density (0.1% w/v) barium sulfate suspension (LDBSS) for CT enterography (CTE) preparation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Total 173 consecutive patients who underwent CTE were enrolled in this study. The LDBSS (1 L) was used in 50 patients, and the diluted iso-osmotic PEG solution (1 L) was used in 123 patients. Two blinded radiologists independently scored jejunal and ileal distensions on a 5-point scale. To compare side effects between the two groups, the patients reported whether they had immediate complications after the administration of the oral contrast media.

RESULTS

For ileal and jejunal distension, the diluted PEG solution showed no difference from the LDBSS for either reader (ileum: reader 1, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3-4; 3-4, p = 0.997; reader 2, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3.3-4.0; 3-4, p = 0.064; jejunum: reader 1, median, 2; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.560; reader 2, median, 3; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.192). None of the patients complained of immediate complications following administration of either of the oral contrast media.

CONCLUSION

The diluted PEG solution showed comparable bowel distension compared to LDBSS and no immediate side effects; thus, it can be a useful alternative.

Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I² range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.

Impact of a Telephone Intervention on Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy in the Elderly

Bowel preparation is the basis of colonoscopy, and adequate bowel preparation is essential to the success of colonoscopy. Studies have been reported that telephone intervention can improve the quality of bowel preparation, while it remains unclear regarding effectiveness with the elderly. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of telephone intervention on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in elderly outpatients. In total, 162 outpatients older than 65 years were enrolled and randomly divided into a control group and a study group. Patients in the study group were re-educated through telephone by a specific nurse 2 days before colonoscopy, whereas participants in the control group received education only on the day of appointment. The Ottawa score was used to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation between the two groups. In this study, no significant differences were observed in age, gender, body mass index, educational level, smoking and/or alcohol drinking, waiting time to colonoscopy, reasons for colonoscopy, and colonoscopic findings between the control group and the study group. Participants in the study group had higher adequate bowel preparation and compliance than the control group (83.1% vs. 59.5%, p = .03; 96.4% vs. 74.7%, p < .001). Univariate analysis showed that only noncompliance with start time was significantly associated with satisfactory bowel preparation in elderly patients. In conclusion, telephone intervention 2 days before colonoscopy can improve the quality of bowel preparation in the elderly.