Electrolyte changes after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A randomized controlled multicenter trial

Does luck always favor the prepared? Analysis of the NSQIP database shows benefits of combined bowel preparation on colostomy reversal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation has long been used to prevent infectious complications and facilitate easy colorectal surgery. Both mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation have been thoroughly studied in the elective colorectal resection population, but no studies exist on their use before adult colostomy reversals. This study aims to evaluate the effect of preoperative bowel preparation on anastomotic leak and infectious complication rates after colostomy reversal surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis of the 2016-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program colorectal-specific database was performed. Adults who underwent elective colostomy reversal were stratified into 4 groups: no bowel preparation, oral antibiotic only, mechanical bowel preparation only, or combined oral antibiotic + mechanical bowel preparation. Outcomes measured were infectious complications, anastomotic leak, prolonged ileus, wound disruption, acute kidney injury, Clostridium difficile colitis, return to the operating room, survivor-only length of stay, mortality, and unplanned readmissions. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of infectious complications and anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

A total of 793 patients who underwent colostomy takedown were identified (no bowel preparation: 37%; oral antibiotic only: 7%; mechanical bowel preparation only: 13%; combined oral antibiotic + mechanical bowel preparation: 42%). Patients who had oral antibiotic + mechanical bowel preparation had significantly lower 30-day rates of organ/space surgical site infection, sepsis, septic shock, anastomotic leak, prolonged ileus, wound disruption, and length of stay (P < .05). On multivariate analysis, combined oral antibiotic + mechanical bowel preparation was associated with lower adjusted odds of infectious complications (adjusted odds ratio: 0.52, P < .05) and anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio: 0.37, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study specifically demonstrating that combined oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel preparation may reduce infectious complications and anastomotic leaks without increasing Clostridium difficile colitis and acute kidney injury after adult elective colostomy reversal. Granular, large-scale, prospective studies are warranted to replicate these findings and identify opportunities for quality improvement.

Navigating Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Comprehensive Overview

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the United States. Early detection through colonoscopy significantly improves survival rates. Detecting colon polyps depends on the quality of bowel preparation. However, inadequate bowel preparation remains a significant issue in clinical practice. Efforts to address this challenge have led to the development of bowel preparation regimens emphasizing efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Bowel preparation options can be categorized by their osmotic and volume properties. Isosmotic solutions based on polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solutions (PEG-ELS) are available in both low-volume PEG-ELS with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) (e.g., MoviPrep, PLENVU) and high-volume formulations (e.g., GoLYTELY, CoLyte), as well as sulfate-free high-volume PEG-ELS formulations (SF-PEG-ELS). Hyperosmotic solutions include oral sulfate solution (OSS) (e.g., SUPREP), sodium phosphate tablets (NaP) (e.g., OsmoPrep), oral sulfate tablets (OST) (e.g., SUTAB), flavored PEG with sulfate salts (FPSS) (e.g., SUFLAVE), and magnesium citrate. Hypoosmotic solutions consist of PEG-sports drink (PEG-SD). In addition, combination solutions are available, such as sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) with laxatives (e.g., CLENPIQ), and OSS with SF-PEG-ELS (Suclear). Each regimen differs in terms of cost, volume, taste, contraindications, and potential adverse effects. Therefore, clinicians must carefully evaluate each patient to determine the most suitable regimen for their patients.

Using the Cardiac-Electrophysiological Balance Index to Predict Arrhythmia Risk After Colonoscopy

Background and Objectives: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S., and colonoscopy is a critical tool for colon cancer screening and diagnosis. Electrolyte disturbances and autonomic nervous system dysfunction that may occur due to bowel preparation and the colonoscopy procedure itself may play a role in the development of cardiac arrhythmia. This study aimed to assess the index of cardiac-electrophysiological balance (iCEB) to predict ventricular arrhythmia risk related to colonoscopy. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing elective colonoscopy with a normal sinus rhythm were included. Electrocardiography (ECG) recordings both before bowel preparation and after the colonoscopy procedure were obtained. Values of the index of cardiac-electrophysiological balance (iCEB) were compared. Results: Among 36 patients, it was determined that the heart rate values of the patients before bowel preparation were higher than the heart rate values after colonoscopy [74.5 (60-108) bpm vs. 68.5 (53-108) bpm, p = 0.021]. The duration of QT interval increased (370.9 ± 27.8 ms vs. 398.7 ± 29.4 ms, p < 0.001) and the iCEB increased from 4.1 ± 0.5 to 4.5 ± 0.6 (p < 0.001), indicating a significant post-procedural risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Conclusions: These findings suggest that routine iCEB assessment post-colonoscopy could identify high-risk patients requiring closer monitoring.

Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The ideal bowel cleansing program still needs to be explored. The aim was to compare the bowel cleansing effect and patient tolerance of low-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with different doses of linaclotide in fractionated bowel preparation.

METHODS

The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group. The primary outcome was to use the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) to evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the detection rate of adenomas and polyps, adverse reactions, tolerance, and defecation dynamics; subsets of patients with chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 753 patients were randomly assigned. In ITT analysis, the success of preparation of the 2LPEG + 2L group was better than that of the 2LPEG + L group or the 3LPEG group (92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.002). Compared with the 3LPEG group, the 2LPEG + L group showed similar but non-inferior results (82.3% vs. 82.1%, P > 0.05). The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group. In a subgroup analysis of chronic constipation, the 2LPEG + 2L group had the best cleansing effect on the right colon and mid colon, while in the subgroup analysis of irritable bowel syndrome, the tolerance was better in the 2LPEG + 2L group and the 2LPEG + L group than the 3LPEG group.

CONCLUSIONS

2LPEG + 2L is a feasible bowel preparation regimen.

Cleaning effect and tolerance of 16 bowel preparation regimens on adult patients before colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Before a colonoscopy, an adequate bowel preparation (BP) is required. Currently, more novel regimens with different effects have been proposed and used successively. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the cleaning effects and patients' tolerability of several BP regimens.

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including sixteen kinds of BP regimens. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The outcomes of this study were bowel cleansing effect and tolerance.

RESULTS

We included a total of 40 articles with 13,064 patients. For the primary outcomes, polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid (Asc) + simethicone (Sim) (OR, 14.27, 95%CrI, 2.68-127.87) regimen is ranked first in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PEG + Sim (OR, 2.0, 95%CrI 0.64-6.4) regimen is ranked first in Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), but without significant differences. For the secondary outcomes, PEG + Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SP/MC) (OR, 4.88e + 11, 95%CrI, 39.56-1.82e + 35) regimen is the best in cecal intubation rate(CIR). PEG + Sim (OR,1.5, 95%CrI, 1.0-2.2) regimen is ranked first in adenoma detection rate(ADR). Senna (OR, 3.23, 95%CrI, 1.04-9.97) and SP/MC (OR, 249.91, 95%CrI, 78.49-958.19) regimens are ranked first in abdominal pain and willingness to repeat, respectively. There is no significant difference in cecal intubation time (CIT), polyp detection rate (PDR), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloat.

CONCLUSION

PEG + Asc + Sim regimen is more effective at cleaning the bowel. PEG + SP/MC will be helpful to increase CIR. For ADR, PEG + Sim regimen will be more helpful. In addition, PEG + Asc + Sim is the least likely to cause abdominal bloat, while Senna regimen is more likely to cause abdominal pain. Patients prefer to re-use the SP/MC regimen for bowel preparation.

Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in ovarian cancer debulking: Are we lowering or just trading surgical complications?

OBJECTIVES

To examine postoperative complications associated with preoperative mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) for patients with ovarian cancer who underwent bowel resection at cytoreductive surgery (CRS).

METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective study of patients with ovarian cancer undergoing CRS from 01/2011-12/2020 using ICD-10 diagnoses and procedure codes. Patients were stratified by those who underwent bowel resection versus no resection. Bowel resection patients were further stratified by those who underwent MOABP versus no bowel preparation. Patient demographics, tumor data, and perioperative metrics were collected. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression evaluated odds of 30-day postoperative complications in patients with bowel resection versus no resection and those with MOABP versus no bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Of 919 patients identified, 215 (23.3%) required bowel resection, which included 81 (37.7%) who received MOABP. Patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and cancer data were similar between MOABP versus no bowel preparation patients. MOABP patients underwent more interval CRS (34.6% versus 9.0%), more optimal surgical resections (96.3% versus 83.8%), fewer diverting ostomies (13.5% versus 33.5%), and shorter hospital stays (7.1 versus 9.4 days) than no bowel preparation patients. On adjusted analyses, MOABP patients experienced significantly lower odds of deep/organ-space surgical infections and 30-day readmissions but higher odds of unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and grade 3 or higher cardiac and gastrointestinal complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent preoperative MOABP prior to ovarian cancer CRS with bowel resection had lower odds or deep/organ-space infections and readmissions, shorter hospital stays, fewer diverting ostomies, and more optimal resections. However, these patients also experienced higher odds of ICU admissions and grade 3 or higher cardiac and gastrointestinal complications. The positive and negative postoperative outcomes in this population should be considered in clinical practice.

Comparative study between manitol and sodium picosulfate with magnesium oxide solutions in the preparation for colonoscopy

This prospective, randomized and double-blind study aims to compare two different protocols used for bowel preparation in patients scheduled for colonoscopy. The protocols were composed by solutions of Mannitol or sodium picosulfate combined with magnesium oxide. Patients from the proctology outpatient clinic of the General Surgery Unit of the Regional Hospital of Asa Norte (HRAN) comprised the sample of this study. Both the patients and the colonoscopist had no prior knowledge of the substance used to prepare bowel, which was randomly distributed among the participants. Both protocols demonstrated good and similar results regarding the efficiency of colon preparation, although the review of literature shows a difference in favor of preparation made with Mannitol solution regarding the colon neatness during the exam. In line with the literature, patients who used Mannitol solution had more side effects, highlighting the significant difference found for vomiting and sleep impairment. The preparation with Sodium Picosulfate with Magnesium Oxide was significantly superior in relation to the ease of ingestion perceived by the patients.

Serum electrolytes, osmolality, and cleansing quality after bowel prep for colonoscopy with a PEG solution containing ascorbic acid and electrolytes

BACKGROUND

The cleansing procedure with PEG 3350 + ascorbic acid (PEG + Asc; Moviprep®) requires the additional ingestion of clear liquids. We aimed to determine the effects on serum electrolytes, osmolality and cleansing quality, and in a prospective "real world" trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients underwent a standardized split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy with PEG + Asc. Serum electrolytes and osmolality were measured before and after the prep procedure. The volume of prep solution (PA) and additional clear liquid (CL) was recorded. Prep quality was assessed using the Ottawa Bowel Prep Grading Scale (OBPS). The primary outcome measures were changes of serum electrolytes and osmolality during the cleansing procedure. A secondary end point was the OPBS.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-one of 219 patients entered the per protocol analysis. Prep quality was considered excellent in 57.6%, moderate in 20.9%, and insufficient in 21.5%. The number of patients with hyponatremia increased from 12 (6.3%) before to 25 (13.2%) after the prep procedure. Mean sodium concentration did not change significantly. The volume of CL correlated inversely with Na⁺ concentration (r =  - 0.409, p < 0.01) and a worse OBPS (r = 0.198, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel preparation with PEG-Asc in clinical routine is generally safe, but patients should be advised not to drink more than 2 l of clear liquid because of imminent electrolyte disturbances. Additionally, the quality of cleansing either remains unchanged or may even worsen.

Evaluating lubiprostone for effective bowel preparation before colonoscopy

Background

Colon preparation is a fundamental step for performing a successful colonoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of administering lubiprostone (LB) added to a single dose of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution in achieving satisfactory colon cleanliness and decreasing the side effects.

Results

One-hundred percent of the control group patients reported that the experienced taste was worse than expected, while in the intervention group half of the patients (50%) said that the taste was natural and 48% experienced taste worse than expected (p<0.0001). Regarding Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), there was a significant difference in the overall Boston scale (p=0.02) with more efficacy in the intervention group as 66% of patients in the intervention group had good bowel preparation (5–7) and 24% excellent preparation (8–9). On the other hand, the overall Boston scale in the control group showed that 54% of patients were between 5 and 7, and only 16% of patients had overall Boston scale 8–9. In terms of the side effects of the preparation in both arms, the majority of cases in the intervention arm did not complain of any side effects (78%), while the majority of the complaints were vomiting in 16% of the intervention cases.

Conclusion

The current evidence suggested that adding LB to the colon preparation significantly improved the tolerability and efficacy.

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.

Development of blood-based biomarker tests for early detection of colorectal neoplasia: Influence of blood collection timing and handling procedures

INTRODUCTION

Blood-based, cancer-associated biomarkers are susceptible to a variety of well-known preanalytical factors. The influence of bowel preparation before a diagnostic colonoscopy on biomarker levels is, however, poorly investigated. The present study assessed the influence of bowel preparation on colorectal cancer-associated biomarkers. In addition, the effect of single versus double centrifugation of plasma biomarkers was assessed.

METHODS

Blood samples were collected pre- and post-bowel preparation from 125 subjects scheduled for first time diagnostic colonoscopy due to symptoms attributable to CRC. The samples were separated into serum and EDTA plasma, and analyzed by four independent collaborators for: 1) the proteins AFP, CA19-9, CEA, hs-CRP, CyFra21-1, Ferritin, Galectin-3 and TIMP-1, 2) the proteins BAG4, IL6ST, vWF, CD44 and EGFR, 3) the glycoprotein Galectin-3 ligand, and 4) cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Statistical analysis of biomarker data has been performed using mixed modelling, including repeated measures.

RESULTS

The biomarkers generally showed negligible variation between pre- and post-bowel preparation except for CyFra21-1, Ferritin, BAG4 and cfDNA. CyFra21-1 levels were systematically reduced with 29% (95% CI 21-36%) by bowel preparation (p ≤ 0.0001). Ferritin was not significantly different between pre- and post-bowel preparation (p = 0.07), however the estimated difference (increase) was 18%. BAG4 was systematically reduced by 12% (95% CI 1-22%, p = 0.04), while cfDNA showed a significant increase of 28% (95% CI 17-39%, p < 0.0001). Double centrifugation compared to single centrifugation showed reduced vWF (ratio 0.86, p ≤ 0.0001) and CD44 (ratio 0.85, p = 0.016), but increased IL6ST levels (ratio 1.18, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the present study demonstrated systematic, statistically significant differences between pre-bowel and post-bowel preparation levels for three independent blood-based biomarkers (BAG4, CyFra21-1, cfDNA), illustrating the importance of timing of sample collection for biomarker analyses.

Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation (NER1006): proof of concept assessment versus standard 2 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbate - a randomized, parallel group, phase 2, colonoscopist-blinded trial

Background

Colonoscopy requires colon cleansing. For this, many polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based preparations still require a high preparation-volume intake. Using an increased osmotic load with ascorbate (Asc), five new low-volume PEG-based bowel preparations (LVPEG) were tested for clinical proof of concept.

Methods

This two-part, open-label study examined preparation-volumes of 1–1.25 L and total required fluid volumes of 2–3 L. Part 1, in healthy volunteers, used mean cumulative 24-h stool weight (target > 2750 g) to identify a lead candidate. Part 2 was endoscopist-blinded: patients undergoing screening colonoscopy were randomized before treatment with the selected lead, one of two variants of it, or the control 2 L PEG + Asc. Two primary endpoints were used for proof of concept demonstration: mean 24-h stool weight and bowel cleansing success (Harefield Cleansing Scale).

Results

A total of 120 subjects (30 per group) were enrolled/randomized 1:1:1:1 (max 40:60 gender ratio) per completed Part. In Part 1, LVPEG-3 achieved the largest mean stool weight (3399 g: P < 0.0001 vs target) and was selected for Part 2. In Part 2, stool weights exceeded the target, notably for LVPEG-4 (3215 g: P < 0.001), which achieved 100% cleansing success after a total required fluid intake of 2 L. The control achieved 90% cleansing success. Adverse events were few, gastrointestinal in nature and similar between groups.

Conclusions

LVPEG-4 achieved a clinically useful combination of cleansing, safety/tolerability and low consumption volume: 1 L preparation + 1 L required additional fluid. Named NER1006, LVPEG-4 demonstrated clinical proof of concept and warrants further investigation.

Trial registration

October 2012.

Identifier: NCT01714466. EudraCT: 2012–003052-37

The trial was prospectively registered.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12876-019-0988-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Low-Volume Polyethylene Glycol Improved Patient Attendance in Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis

Background: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been regarded as the primary recommendation for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, a conclusive conclusion has not yet been generated.

Aim: We performed this updated meta-analysis to further investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of low volume preparation based on PEG plus ascorbic acid related to 4L PEG.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted to retrieve potential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 2000 to April 2018. Two independent searchers critically searched all potential citations, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias accordingly. Moreover, we used the STATA 12.0 and trial sequential analysis (TSA) 0.9 to complete all analyses.

Results: A total of 13 RCTs enrolling 3,910 patients met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis based on PP analysis indicated that compared to standard volume PEG regime, low volume regime improved patient compliance RR = 1.01; 95% CIs = 1.00, 1.03; P = 0.143 (≥75% intake); RR = 1.07; 95% CIs = 1.00, 1.14; P = 0.046 (100% intake), the willingness to repeat the same regime (RR = 1.30; 95% CIs = 1.07, 157; P = 0.007), and patient acceptability (RR = 1.18; 95% CIs = 1.07, 1.29; P = 0.001), and decreased the overall adverse events (RR = 0.86; 95% CIs = 0.77, 0.96; P = 0.009). However, no difference was observed between these two different solutions for bowel preparation efficacy (RR = 0.98; 95% CIs = 0.95, 1.02; P = 0.340). These all results were further confirmed by TSA.

Conclusions: The effect of low volume regime was not inferior to the standard volume PEG regime, and low volume regime was associated with better compliance when subjects ingested all the solution, willingness to repeat the same regime, higher acceptability, and lower nausea in non-selected population.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy may decrease the levels of testosterone in Korean men

Although colonoscopy is commonly conducted for medical check-ups in Korea, investigations for the influence of bowel preparation on various health conditions are insufficient. This cross-sectional study investigated whether bowel preparation has an influence on serum levels of testosterone. A total of 1114 men were divided into the bowel preparation group and control groups. The median total and free testosterone levels were significantly lower in the bowel preparation group (14.89 and 0.26 nmol/L, respectively) than in the control groups (15.72 and 0.28 nmol/L, respectively). The level of total testosterone significantly increased with age in the bowel preparation group (r = 0.103). The differences in the levels of total and free testosterone between the 2 groups were more prominent in younger men than in older men. In multivariate regression models, bowel preparation was independently associated with the levels of total and free testosterone. In these models, the interaction between age and bowel preparation was significant for the levels of total and free testosterone. In conclusion, bowel preparation may independently decrease the serum levels of total and free testosterone. The decline in testosterone was more evident in younger men than in older men.

Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Polyethylene Glycol With Ascorbic Acid and an Oral Sulfate Solution in a Split Method for Bowel Preparation: A Randomized, Multicenter Phase III Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

An adequate level of bowel preparation before colonoscopy is important. The ideal agent for bowel preparation should be effective and tolerable.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid and oral sulfate solution in a split method for bowel preparation.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.

SETTINGS

Outpatients at the specialized clinics were included.

PATIENTS

A total of 186 subjects were randomly assigned. After exclusions, 84 subjects in the polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid group and 83 subjects in the oral sulfate solution group completed the study and were analyzed.

INTERVENTIONS

Polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid or oral sulfate solution in a split method was the included intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was the rate of successful bowel preparation, which was defined as being excellent or good on the Aronchick scale. Tolerability and adverse events were also measured.

RESULTS

Success of bowel preparation was not different between 2 groups (91.7% vs 96.4%; p = 0.20), and the rate of adverse GI events (abdominal distension, pain, nausea, vomiting, or abdominal discomfort) was not significantly different between the 2 groups. In contrast, the mean intensity of vomiting was higher in the oral sulfate solution group than in the polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid group (1.6 ± 0.9 vs 1.9 ± 1.1; p = 0.02).

LIMITATIONS

All of the colonoscopies were performed in the morning, and the subjects were offered enhanced instructions for bowel preparation. In addition, the results of tolerability and adverse effect may have a type II error, because the number of cases was calculated for confirming the efficacy of bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral sulfate solution is effective at colonoscopy cleansing and has acceptable tolerability when it is compared with polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid. The taste and flavor of oral sulfate solution still need to be improved to enhance tolerability.

Does 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid Increase the Risk of Renal Impairment Compared to 4 L Polyethylene Glycol?

BACKGROUND

The use of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solutions is the gold standard for bowel preparation. However, PEG use might be associated with the risk of acute kidney injury.

AIMS

We aimed to compare the safety of 2 L PEG plus ascorbic acid (AA) versus 4 L PEG.

METHODS

Health examinees that underwent colonoscopy and blood tests on the same day at our center were included in this retrospective study. All subjects were prescribed either 2 L PEG plus AA or 4 L PEG for the bowel preparation prior to the colonoscopy. The incidences of electrolyte imbalance and renal impairment after colonic preparation were investigated. Renal impairment was determined if the subject's estimated glomerular filtration rate was measured less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m².

RESULTS

Of the 29,789 cases, 14,790 received 2 L PEG plus AA (group A) and 14,999 received 4 L PEG (group B) for colonic preparation. Renal impairment occurred more commonly in group A (n = 467, 3.2 %) than in group B (n = 189, 1.3 %). Electrolyte changes such as hypernatremia and hyperkalemia were more common in group A than group B, whereas hyponatremia, hypokalemia, and hypophosphatemia were more common in group B than group A. Old age, male sex, and the use of 2 L PEG plus AA were independent risk factors for renal impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence strongly suggests that acute kidney injury is more likely to occur when 2 L PEG plus AA is used for the bowel preparation than when 4 L PEG is used.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

KCT0001703.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: state of the art

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy is a key quality indicator that impacts on all aspects of the procedure, such as patient comfort, diagnostic yield, and adverse events. Although most laxative regimens currently employed have been compared in a multitude of settings, the optimal preparation regimen still remains an open question.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have focused on developing new regimens by modifying dosage, timing of administration or by combining laxatives with synergic mechanisms of action with the purpose of increasing patient tolerability while maximizing bowel cleansing. Several low-volume preparations and combinations of laxatives and adjunctive medication have shown promise in delivering both adequate preparation of the colon and good patient tolerability. Also, we have gained a better understanding of the influence of patient-related factors such as health literacy and education on the quality of bowel preparation.

SUMMARY

Although several novel regimens have been tested in recent trials, it remains unclear which, if any, of these bowel preparations can replace the standard bowel cleansing regimens in clinical practice. Also, further data are required on how to improve bowel cleansing by choosing the appropriate regimen for the individual patient.

Bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: Balancing efficacy, safety, cost and patient tolerance

Effective colorectal cancer screening relies on reliable colonoscopy findings which are themselves dependent on adequate bowel cleansing. Research has consistently demonstrated that inadequate bowel preparation adversely affects the adenoma detection rate and leads gastroenterologists to recommend earlier follow up than is consistent with published guidelines. Poor preparation affects as many as 30% of colonoscopies and contributes to an increased cost of colonoscopies. Patient tolerability is strongly affected by the preparation chosen and manner in which it is administered. Poor tolerability is, in turn, associated with lower quality bowel preparations. Recently, several new developments in both agents being used for bowel preparation and in the timing of administration have brought endoscopists closer to achieving the goal of effective, reliable, safe, and tolerable regimens. Historically, large volume preparations given in a single dose were administered to patients in order to achieve adequate bowel cleansing. These were poorly tolerated, and the unpleasant taste of and significant side effects produced by these large volume regimens contributed significantly to patients’ inability to reliably complete the preparation and to a reluctance to repeat the procedure. Smaller volumes, including preparations that are administered as tablets to be consumed with water, given as split doses have significantly improved both the patient experience and efficacy, and an appreciation of the importance of the preparation to colonoscopy interval have produced additional cleansing.

High Stroke Volume Variation Method by Mannitol Administration Can Decrease Blood Loss During Donor Hepatectomy

Optimal fluid management to reduce blood loss during donor hepatectomy is important for maximizing donor safety. Mannitol can induce osmotic diuresis, helping prevent increased intravascular volume status. We therefore evaluated the effect of high stroke volume variation (SVV) method by mannitol administration and fluid restriction on blood loss during donor hepatectomy.In this prospective study, 64 donors scheduled for donor right hepatectomy were included and allocated into 2 groups. In group A, the SVV value of each patient was maintained at 10% to 20% during hepatic resection with 0.5 g/kg mannitol administration and fluid restriction at a rate of 2 to 4 mL/kg/h. In group B, the SVV value was maintained at <10% by fluid administration at a rate of 6 to 10 mL/kg/h without diuretic administration during surgery. Intraoperative blood loss was estimated by the loss of red cell mass. Surgeon satisfaction scores and postoperative outcomes, including acute kidney injury, abnormal chest radiographic findings, and hospital stay duration, were also assessed.SVV during hepatectomy was significantly higher in group A than in group B (11.0 ± 1.7 vs 6.5 ± 1.1, P < 0.001). The red cell mass loss was significantly lower in group A than in group B (145.4 ± 107.6 vs 307.9 ± 110.7 mL, P < 0.001). Surgeon satisfaction scores were higher in group A than in group B (2.8 ± 0.5 vs 2.0 ± 0.6, P < 0.001). The incidence of acute kidney injury, abnormal chest radiographic findings, and duration of hospital stay did not significantly differ between the 2 groups.Maintenance of high SVV by mannitol administration is effective and safe for reducing blood loss during donor hepatectomy.