-
1.
Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in 2020: A Look at the Past, Present, and Future.
Millien, VO, Mansour, NM
Current gastroenterology reports. 2020;(6):28
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the USA. Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening and can offer both diagnosis and therapy. The bowel preparation remains a significant barrier for patients who need to undergo colonoscopy and is often cited as the most dreaded aspect of the colonoscopy process. Inadequate bowel preparations still occur in 10-25% of colonoscopies, and this in turn can lead to increased procedural times, lower cecal intubation rates, and shorter interval between colonoscopies. From a quality standpoint, it is imperative that we do what we can to decrease the rate of inadequate bowel preparations. This review will focus on recent data regarding bowel preparation and offers a glimpse into what may be coming in the future. RECENT FINDINGS Recent advances in the field have been made to improve tolerability of bowel preparations and allow for more adequate colonoscopies. Newer, lower volume, flavored preparations, the use of adjuncts, and using split-dose preparations all can help with tolerability, compliance, and, in turn, preparation quality. Edible bowel preparations may become available in the near future. Early data on the use of artificial intelligence for assessment of preparation quality has been promising. Additionally, utilization of smartphone technology for education prior to the bowel preparation has also been shown to improve the adequacy of bowel preparations. CONCLUSIONS Ongoing efforts to improve the tolerability and palatability of colonoscopy bowel preparations are important from a quality improvement standpoint to ensure the adequacy of colonoscopy. Incorporating patient-specific factors and comorbidities is also an essential aspect of improving the quality of bowel preparation. Leveraging technology to better communicate with and educate patients on the bowel preparation process is likely to play a larger role in the coming years.
-
2.
Gut microbiota, dysbiosis and colon lavage.
Drago, L, Valentina, C, Fabio, P
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2019;(9):1209-1213
Abstract
Gut microbial dysbiosis is considered an alteration of diversity and abundance of intestinal microbes, which contributes to the onset of many disorders. Several factors cause dysbiosis, depending on life-style (nutrition, stress, environment, smoking, physical activity) or particular diseases (inflammatory, autoimmune, chronic diseases). Drugs (i.e. antibiotics, anticancer drugs), as well as medical and surgical procedures, can often cause dysbiosis. Mechanical bowel preparations (MBP) and the so called "bowel cleansing" have an immediate impact on intestinal microbial composition. Whether these "acute" changes may lead to any clinical consequences is still unknown. It is tempting to speculate that such dysbiosis fostering events, at least in patients already presenting abdominal complaints, such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, may drive additional or more severe symptoms. Recently, the possibility of using probiotic supplementation has been addressed in the literature, with the purpose to counteract intestinal dysfunctional changes observed in relation to a dysbiotic state. Whereas probiotics are recognized to be effective and safe in restoring gut microbiota dysbiosis, preliminary evidence suggest that this approach may prove helpful even in case of transient dysbiotic states related to colonoscopy bowel preparation.
-
3.
Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review.
Rondonotti, E, Spada, C, Adler, S, May, A, Despott, EJ, Koulaouzidis, A, Panter, S, Domagk, D, Fernandez-Urien, I, Rahmi, G, et al
Endoscopy. 2018;(4):423-446
Abstract
SMALL-BOWEL CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY (SBCE): 1: ESGE recommends that prior to SBCE patients ingest a purgative (2 L of polyethylene glycol [PEG]) for better visualization.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.However, the optimal timing for taking purgatives is yet to be established. 2: ESGE recommends that SBCE should be performed as an outpatient procedure if possible, since completion rates are higher in outpatients than in inpatients.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that patients with pacemakers can safely undergo SBCE without special precautions.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE suggests that SBCE can also be safely performed in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and left ventricular assist devices.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends the acceptance of qualified nurses and trained technicians as prereaders of capsule endoscopy studies as their competency in identifying pathology is similar to that of medically qualified readers. The responsibility of establishing a diagnosis must however remain with the attending physician.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends observation in cases of asymptomatic capsule retention.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In cases where capsule retrieval is indicated, ESGE recommends the use of device-assisted enteroscopy as the method of choice.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. DEVICE-ASSISTED ENTEROSCOPY (DAE): 1: ESGE recommends performing diagnostic DAE as a day-case procedure in patients without significant underlying co-morbidities; in patients with co-morbidities and/or those undergoing a therapeutic procedure, an inpatient stay is recommended.Strong recommendation, low quality evidenceThe choice between different settings also depends on sedation protocols.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests that conscious sedation, deep sedation, and general anesthesia are all acceptable alternatives: the choice between them should be governed by procedure complexity, clinical factors, and local organizational protocols.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that the findings of previous diagnostic investigations should guide the choice of insertion route.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If the location of the small-bowel lesion is unknown or uncertain, ESGE recommends that the antegrade route should be generally preferred.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.In the setting of massive overt bleeding, ESGE recommends an initial antegrade approach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends that, for balloon-assisted enteroscopy (i. e., single-balloon enteroscopy [SBE] and double-balloon enteroscopy [DBE]), small-bowel insertion depth should be estimated by counting net advancement of the enteroscope during the insertion phase, with confirmation of this estimate during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that, for spiral enteroscopy, insertion depth should be estimated during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Since the calculated insertion depth is only a rough estimate, ESGE recommends placing a tattoo to mark the identified lesion and/or the deepest point of insertion.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that all endoscopic therapeutic procedures can be undertaken at the time of DAE.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Moreover, when therapeutic interventions are performed, additional specific safety measures are needed to prevent complications.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
-
4.
Systematic review and meta-analysis: is bowel preparation still necessary in small bowel capsule endoscopy?
Yung, DE, Rondonotti, E, Sykes, C, Pennazio, M, Plevris, JN, Koulaouzidis, A
Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology. 2017;(10):979-993
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Optimal bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy(SBCE) is controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of laxatives in SBCE. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies investigating the use of laxatives in SBCE. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield(DY) for SB findings; secondary outcomes SB visualization quality(SBVQ) and completion rate(CR). Pooled odds ratios(ORs) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs) and number needed to treat(NNT) were calculated. RESULTS Forty studies (4380 patients with laxatives, 2185 without) were included. Laxative use did not improve DY of SB findings overall (OR 1.11 (95%CI 0.85-1.44)) or for significant SB findings (OR 1.10 (95%CI 0.76-1.60)). However, SBVQ improved with the use of laxatives (OR 1.60 (95%CI 1.08-2.06)), NNT 14. The OR for completed SBCE was 1.30 (95%CI 0.95-1.78). Patients given polyethylene glycol(PEG) had lower DY than sodium phosphate(NaP). SBVQ improved more with NaP (NNT 7) than PEG (NNT 53). CONCLUSIONS Laxatives do not significantly improve DY or CR in SBCE, but do improve SBQV. The use of laxatives may be beneficial in patients likely to have subtle findings. There are significant differences in methodology/definitions between studies, hence the need for standardized visualization scoring and recording of SBCE findings.
-
5.
Symptomatic Hyponatremia after Bowel Preparation: Report of Two Cases and Literature Review.
Costa, JM, Soares, JB
Acta medica portuguesa. 2017;(11):824-826
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Bowel preparation for colonoscopy and/or colorectal surgery can cause electrolyte imbalances. The risk of electrolyte imbalances seems to be related to the type of bowel cleansing solution, age of patients and comorbidities. CASE REPORT We report two cases of symptomatic hyponatremia (focal neurological signs and coma) after bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate for colonoscopy. In both cases, symptoms related to hyponatremia rapidly disappeared after sodium level correction with intravenous administration of hypertonic saline (3% NaCl). DISCUSSION Electrolyte imbalances are more common with sodium phosphate-based solutions (NaP) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate, in patients older than 65, in patients treated with thiazide diuretics, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, betablockers or antidepressants and in gastrectomized patients. These patients should use macrogol-based solutions (polyethylene glycol). CONCLUSION In patients at risk (patient > 65 years old, patients taking thiazide diuretics, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and antidepressants and with previous gastrectomy) we recommend macrogol-based solutions.
-
6.
The management of 'hard-to-prepare' colonoscopy patients.
Mandolesi, D, Frazzoni, L, Bazzoli, F, Fuccio, L
Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology. 2017;(8):731-740
Abstract
Effective bowel cleansing is crucial for high quality colonoscopy. A notable portion of patients still present with low quality bowel preparation prior to their colonoscopy, compromising the overall quality of their colonoscopy. Areas covered: This review focuses on the main strategies that can improve the cleansing quality with a special interest on those clinical conditions that have been associated with a poor bowel preparation quality, such as patients with chronic constipation, history of bowel resection, liver cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. The review provides a practical and evidence-based approach to help clinicians in the management of 'hard-to-prepare' patients. Expert commentary: In the past few years, the quality of colonoscopy has become a hot topic and bowel cleansing is a crucial part of it; however, the approach to patients with an increased risk of poor bowel preparation quality is still not always supported by high-quality evidence, since most of these patients are routinely excluded from the clinical studies. Trials focused on this subgroup of patients are recommended to provide tailored bowel preparation regimens and guarantee high-quality procedures.
-
7.
Sodium phosphate versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel preparation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Cheng, J, Tao, K, Shuai, X, Gao, J
Surgical endoscopy. 2016;(9):4033-41
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adequate bowel cleansing is of great importance for a high-quality colonoscopy examination. Nevertheless, whether sodium phosphate or polyethylene glycol is a gold standard agent for bowel preparation is still under debate. In consideration of the clinical needs, we thus performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concerning the comparison between both regimens. The efficacy, safety and acceptability of each regimen are major indicators to measure and appraise. METHODS By searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases, 15 original trials published from 2000 to 2014 were included as eligible studies. We carried out data extraction and subsequent pooling analysis for each indicator in a standard manner. Sensitivity analysis was performed by elimination of low-quality trials, while a funnel plot and Egger's test were employed to analyze the publication bias across studies. RESULTS Our pooling analysis revealed that patients undergoing sodium phosphate as a cleansing agent displayed better acceptability, compliance, cleansing scores, preparation taste, polyp detection rate and less adverse effects including nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain (P < 0.05). In terms of procedure time, adequate preparation rate and electrolyte concentration, there was no significant difference between both regimens (P > 0.05). The pooling analysis offered stable conclusions which were verified by our sensitivity analysis. There was no publication bias across studies as a symmetric funnel plot was demonstrated and the result of Egger's test was P = 0.56. CONCLUSIONS Regarding preparation efficacy, safety and acceptability, sodium phosphate was a better agent than polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel cleansing, with its advantages of higher efficacy, better tolerability and acceptability as well as comparable safety.
-
8.
Chronic Constipation.
Brenner, DM, Shah, M
Gastroenterology clinics of North America. 2016;(2):205-16
Abstract
Chronic constipation is a common disorder that affects approximately 20% of the population and significantly impacts an individual's quality of life. The diagnosis can be made using standard criteria, and in the absence of alarm signs or symptoms, a determination of the underlying etiology/etiologies should be undertaken. In many instances, these will be gleaned from the history and physical examination. Specialized diagnostic testing may be warranted after the failure of initial laxative trials. Many therapeutic classes of laxatives exist with recent analyses indicating that practicing physicians prefer to use over-the-counter therapies in lieu of more strongly evidence-based prescription pharmaceuticals.
-
9.
Renal risk associated with sodium phosphate medication: safe in healthy individuals, potentially dangerous in others.
Hoffmanová, I, Kraml, P, Anděl, M
Expert opinion on drug safety. 2015;(7):1097-110
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Sodium phosphate purgatives are used for bowel preparation before endoscopic or radiologic examination and occasionally for treatment of severe obstipation. Generally, they are well tolerated and effective; however, safety concerns exist regarding serious renal injury and electrolyte disturbances after administration of these drugs. AREAS COVERED The review presents complications associated with the use of agents containing sodium phosphate with regard to electrolyte disorders and renal impairment, namely acute phosphate nephropathy (APhN). This paper discusses the pathophysiology, histopathological findings, clinical symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of APhN. Additionally, it examines the epidemiology of adverse renal events and the safety of using sodium phosphate preparations prior to colonoscopy. EXPERT OPINION Because of safety concerns, sodium phosphate purgatives are not recommended for routine bowel cleansing. Despite some serious and even fatal adverse events associated with these drugs when used with at-risk patients, available data suggest that administration of sodium phosphate purgatives is relatively safe in nonrisk individuals(i.e., in adequately hydrated, otherwise healthy adults, younger than 55 years with evidence of normal renal function).
-
10.
Preoperative Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Abdominal, Laparoscopic, and Vaginal Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Arnold, A, Aitchison, LP, Abbott, J
Journal of minimally invasive gynecology. 2015;(5):737-52
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to be widely used in gynecologic surgery, with the aim of reducing postoperative complications and improving the viewing and handling conditions in the surgical field. It is reported that MBP is an unpleasant patient experience and may be associated with adverse effects such as dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. This review evaluates the use of preoperative MBP compared with no MBP in adult patients undergoing open abdominal, laparoscopic, or vaginal surgery. Although the focus is on the use of MBP for gynecologic procedures, data from other surgical areas are covered when relevant. DESIGN A comprehensive search of the databases Medline (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1947), PubMed, Cochrane Library Central (Register of Controlled Trials), and Google Scholar was performed to identify any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or retrospective cohort studies comparing preoperative MBP to no MBP. RESULTS Forty-three studies were identified in various surgical specialties, of which there were 5 RCTs in gynecology. The gynecologic studies reported no benefit for MBP in operative time or improved surgical field of view but did report a more unpleasant patient experience when MBP is used. RCTs from colorectal and urologic surgery were powered for infectious morbidity and anastomotic leak and did not demonstrate improved patient outcomes when MBP was used. CONCLUSION Evidence from high-quality trials reports no or few benefits from MBP or rectal enema across surgical specialties. In the field of gynecologic surgery, high-quality evidence supports the view that MBP may be safely abandoned.