1.
Influence of the Retrocolic Versus Antecolic Route for Alimentary Tract Reconstruction on Delayed Gastric Emptying After Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Multicenter, Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.
Toyama, H, Matsumoto, I, Mizumoto, T, Fujita, H, Tsuchida, S, Kanbara, Y, Kadowaki, Y, Maeda, H, Okano, K, Fukuoka, M, et al
Annals of surgery. 2021;(6):935-944
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine whether retrocolic alimentary tract reconstruction is noninferior to antecolic reconstruction in terms of DGE incidence after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and investigated patients' postoperative nutritional status. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA The influence of the route of alimentary tract reconstruction on DGE after PD is controversial. METHODS Patients from 9 participating institutions scheduled for PD were randomly allocated to the retrocolic or antecolic reconstruction groups. The primary outcome was incidence of DGE, defined according to the 2007 version of the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery definition. Noninferiority would be indicated if the incidence of DGE in the retrocolic group did not exceed that in the antecolic group by a margin of 10%. Patients' postoperative nutrition data were compared as secondary outcomes. RESULTS Total, 109 and 103 patients were allocated to the retrocolic and antecolic reconstruction group, respectively (n = 212). Baseline characteristics were similar between both groups. DGE occurred in 17 (15.6%) and 13 (12.6%) patients in the retrocolic and antecolic group, respectively (risk difference; 2.97%, 95% confidence interval; -6.3% to 12.6%, which exceeded the specified margin of 10%). There were no differences in the incidence of other postoperative complications and in the duration of hospitalization. Postoperative nutritional indices were similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS This trial could not demonstrate the noninferiority of retrocolic to antecolic alimentary tract reconstruction in terms of DGE incidence. The alimentary tract should not be reconstructed via the retrocolic route after PD, to prevent DGE.
2.
A Randomized Trial Comparing the Bowel Cleansing Efficacy of Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate and Polyethylene Glycol/Bisacodyl (The Bowklean Study).
Hung, SY, Chen, HC, Chen, WT
Scientific reports. 2020;(1):5604
Abstract
Bowel cleansing is essential for a successful colonoscopy, but the ideal clearing agent and the volume have yet to be determined. A small-volume cleanser is important for patient compliance. This study aimed to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability of a 300-mL small-volume sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (PSMC) preparation-Bowklean with one 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)/bisacodyl-Klean-Prep/Dulcolax preparation under identical dietary recommendations. This multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, pre-specified noninferiority study enrolled 631 outpatients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy (Bowklean = 316 and Klean-Prep/Dulcolax = 315). After bowel preparation, an independent evaluator blinded to the subject's treatment allocation rated the quality of the colon cleansing. Efficacy was evaluated using the Aronchick Scale and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OPBS). Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events. Tolerability and acceptability were measured via a patient questionnaire. Bowklean was non-interior to Klean-Prep/Dulcolax in overall colon cleansing but was associated with significantly better preparation quality. Notably, Bowklean was associated with significantly greater tolerability and acceptability of bowel preparations than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax. Safety profiles did not differ significantly between the groups. Our data indicate that Bowklean is a more effective and better-tolerated bowel cleansing preparation before colonoscopy than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax. Bowklean may therefore increase positive attitudes toward colonoscopies and participation rates.
3.
Improved high-quality colon cleansing with 1L NER1006 versus 2L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate or oral sulfate solution.
Repici, A, Coron, E, Sharma, P, Spada, C, Di Leo, M, Noble, CL, Gschossmann, J, Bargalló García, A, Baumgart, DC
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2019;(12):1671-1677
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Colonoscopy requires bowel cleansing for gut mucosa visualization; high-quality cleansing facilitates lesion detection. NER1006 is a 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation. This post hoc analysis of two randomized trials investigated cleansing efficacy assessed, as in clinical practice, by site endoscopists. METHODS Patients received NER1006, 2L PEG + ascorbate (2LPEG), or oral sulfate solution (OSS) as a 2-day evening/morning regimen (N2D) or NER1006 morning-only dosing (N1D). Treatment-blinded site endoscopists assessed cleansing using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). Analyses were conducted in a modified full analysis set, including (mFAS; n = 1378) or excluding (mFAS2; n = 1319) imputed failures, and in patients with 100% treatment adherence (mFAS100; n = 1047). Overall cleansing success (HCS grade A/B), overall high-quality cleansing (HCS grade A), and high-quality segments (HCS 3-4) per treatment population were analyzed. RESULTS Overall cleansing success was higher with N2D than 2LPEG (92.7-97.5% vs. 87.9-93.0%), and more patients had overall high-quality cleansing with N2D and N1D than 2LPEG (68.0-72.1% and 64.0-68.4% vs. 50.7-56.0%). Without imputed failures, N2D delivered more overall high-quality cleansing than OSS (74.5-77.3% vs. 67.8-69.8%). More high-quality segments were demonstrated with N2D and N1D versus 2 LPEG (82.5-87.1% and 79.4-84.4% vs. 70.4-76.3%) and with N2D versus OSS (82.7-89.5% vs. 78.1-84.4%). CONCLUSION When assessed by site endoscopists, NER1006 delivers greater high-quality cleansing than 2LPEG or OSS.