-
1.
Safety and Efficacy of Low-Volume Preparation in the Elderly: Oral Sulfate Solution on the Day before and Split-Dose Regimens (SEE SAFE) Study.
Kwak, MS, Cha, JM, Yang, HJ, Park, DI, Kim, KO, Lee, J, Shin, JE, Joo, YE, Park, J, Byeon, JS, et al
Gut and liver. 2019;(2):176-182
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The use of a low-volume bowel cleansing agent is associated with a greater willingness to undergo repeat colonoscopy. Oral sulfate solution (OSS) is a recently approved low-volume agent; however, its efficacy and safety in the elderly population remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of the OSS preparation, in comparison to those of a standard polyethylene glycol (PEG; 4 L) preparation, in elderly patients. METHODS A multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded study was conducted. Participants were randomized to receive OSS or 4-L PEG with a split-dose regimen. Bowel cleansing efficacy was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Acceptance, satisfaction, and preparation-related symptoms were recorded. Additionally, blood parameters were analyzed for electrolyte abnormalities and nephrotoxicity. RESULTS A total of 193 patients were analyzed. No group differences in overall bowel cleansing efficacy were observed, with "adequate"preparations achieved in 95.9% (93/97) and 94.8% (91/96) of patients in the OSS and 4L PEG groups, respectively (p=0.747). However, mean BBPS scores for the entire (p=0.010) and right colon (p=0.001) were significantly higher in the OSS group than in the 4-L PEG group. The severity of clinical adverse events and frequency of acute kidney injury were similarly low, and no clinically meaningful electrolyte changes were identified. Self-reported scores regarding amount (p<0.001) and feeling (p=0.007), as well as overall satisfaction (p=0.001) and willingness to repeat the preparation (92.8% vs 67.7%, p<0.001), were significantly better in the OSS group than in the 4-L PEG group. CONCLUSIONS In elderly individuals, OSS with a split-dose regimen has greater acceptability and comparable efficacy in bowel cleansing compared to 4-L PEG. (Clinical trials registration number: NCT03112967).
-
2.
Clear liquid diet before bowel preparation predicts successful chromoendoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.
Megna, B, Weiss, J, Ley, D, Saha, S, Pfau, P, Grimes, I, Li, Z, Caldera, F
Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2019;(2):373-379.e2
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Chromoendoscopy (CE) has been shown to generate both a superior diagnostic yield and dysplasia detection rate than conventional white-light endoscopy and requires a high-quality bowel preparation. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of the ability to perform CE in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS We performed an observational study of patients with IBD undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance examinations with CE. Same-day colonoscopy surveys were used to collect patient and procedural variables. Multivariate logistic regression was used to establish odds ratios of successful completion of CE. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients with IBD were enrolled. We found that patients who did not follow a clear liquid diet before colonoscopy had much lower odds of being able to undergo CE (odds ratio, 0.106; 95% confidence interval, 0.013-0.845; P < .034). Further, we found that previously identified risk factors (older age, history of diabetes mellitus, the timing and split dosing of preparation solution, and procedure time (AM or PM), chronic narcotic use, and history of constipation) for inadequate bowel preparation were not associated with the ability to perform CE. CONCLUSIONS Following a clear liquid diet the entire day before the procedure was highly predictive of the ability to perform CE. However, established risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation did not inhibit the ability to perform CE in our population. Endoscopists performing CE should consider recommending that patients follow a clear liquid diet the entire day before their examination.
-
3.
Impact of a 1-day versus 3-day low-residue diet on bowel cleansing quality before colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.
Gimeno-García, AZ, de la Barreda Heuser, R, Reygosa, C, Hernandez, A, Mascareño, I, Nicolás-Pérez, D, Jiménez, A, Lara, AJ, Alarcon-Fernández, O, Hernandez-Guerra, M, et al
Endoscopy. 2019;(7):628-636
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to assess whether a 3-day low-residue diet (LRD) improved bowel cleansing quality compared with a 1-day LRD regimen. METHODS Consecutive patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to the 1-day LRD or 3-day LRD groups. All patients received a 2-L split-dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid. The primary outcome was bowel cleansing quality as evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (adequate cleansing ≥ 2 points per segment). Secondary outcomes were adherence to and level of satisfaction with the LRD, difficulty following the dietary recommendations, and willingness to repeat the same LRD in the future. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted for the primary outcome. A superiority analysis was performed to demonstrate that a 3-day LRD regimen was superior to a 1-day LRD regimen with a margin of 10 %. RESULTS 390 patients (1-day LRD group = 196, 3-day LRD = 194) were included. The cleansing quality was not significantly different between the groups: ITT analysis 82.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 77.4 to 88.0) vs. 85.6 % (95 %CI 80.7 to 90.5), with odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95 %CI 0.72 to 2.15); PP analysis 85.0 % (95 %CI 79.9 to 90.1) vs. 88.6 % (95 %CI 84.0 to 93.2), with OR 1.4 (95 %CI 0.88 to 2.52). No differences were found regarding adherence to the diet or cleansing solution, satisfaction or difficulty with the LRD, and the polyp/adenoma detection rates. CONCLUSION 3-day LRD did not offer advantages over 1-day LRD in preparation for colonoscopy.
-
4.
Simethicone decreases bloating and improves bowel preparation effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Moolla, M, Dang, JT, Shaw, A, Dang, TNT, Tian, C, Karmali, S, Sultanian, R
Surgical endoscopy. 2019;(12):3899-3909
Abstract
BACKGROUND Simethicone is an adjunct frequently used during bowel preparation before colonoscopy and currently there is no consensus on whether it should be recommended in standard bowel preparation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect simethicone has on bowel cleanliness, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and tolerability. METHODS We searched the literature for studies that compared colon cleansing of patients that received standard bowel preparation alone and in combination with simethicone prior to colonoscopy. The primary outcomes were colon cleanliness, ADR, and tolerability. RESULTS Sixteen randomized controlled trials with 5630 patients were included in meta-analysis. Overall, polyethylene glycol (PEG) with simethicone improves colon cleansing compared with PEG alone (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, CI 1.11 to 1.97, P = 0.008). This improvement was seen for single dosing (OR 1.83, CI 1.20 to 2.79, P = 0.005) but not for split dosing (OR 1.32, CI 0.72 to 2.43, P = 0.38). Overall, simethicone had no effect on ADR (OR 1.22, CI 0.81 to 1.83, P = 0.33), but in patients receiving single dosing, simethicone significantly increased ADR (OR 1.96, CI 1.22 to 3.16, P = 0.005). The rates of nausea (OR 0.96, CI 0.75 to 1.24, P = 0.75), vomiting (OR 1.00, CI 0.69 to 1.44, P = 0.99), and abdominal pain (OR 0.69, CI 0.40 to 1.18, P = 0.17) were not significantly different between PEG and PEG + simethicone cohorts. For abdominal bloating, the PEG cohort had greater odds of experiencing bloating than the PEG + simethicone cohort (OR 2.33, CI 1.70 to 3.20, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS Simethicone improves colon cleanliness and ADR; however, this improvement is not seen in patients receiving split-dose PEG. Furthermore, simethicone decreases abdominal bloating but has no effect on nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Simethicone may be a useful bowel preparation adjunct in patients unable to receive split-dose PEG.
-
5.
Multicentre endoscopist-blinded randomised clinical trial to compare two bowel preparations after a colonoscopy with inadequate cleansing: a study protocol.
Sey, MSL, von Renteln, D, Sultanian, R, McDonald, C, Martel, M, Barkun, A
BMJ open. 2019;(7):e029573
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Inadequate bowel preparation is common and negatively impacts colonoscopy quality. The objective of this study is to compare two bowel preparation regimens in cleansing the colon after an index colonoscopy with failed bowel preparation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This is a phase III, multicentre, randomised clinical trial comparing two bowel preparation regimens after failure to adequately cleanse at the index colonoscopy. Regimen A consists of 4 L split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) and Regimen B consists of 6 L split-dose PEG-ELS, both preceded by 15 mg of bisacodyl the day before the procedure along with a low-fibre diet 3 and 2 days before the procedure followed by a clear fluid diet starting the day before the procedure. The primary outcome is adequate bowel preparation, defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of ≥6 with each segment score ≥2. Secondary outcomes include mean BBPS score, bowel preparation adequacy using the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer definition, detection rate by polyp subtype, caecal intubation rate, mean Validated Patient Tolerability Questionnaire for Bowel Preparation score, subject willingness to repeat the preparation and faecal incontinence rate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study will be conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and local institutional standards. Study findings will be disseminated at an international gastroenterology conference and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02976805; Pre-results.
-
6.
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.
-
7.
Does prucalopride reduce the dose of sodium phosphate in bowel preparation? A single-blind, randomized, and prospective study.
Hung, JS, Yi, CH, Liu, TT, Lei, WY, Wong, MW, Chen, CL
Journal of digestive diseases. 2019;(6):294-300
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Sodium phosphate solution (NaP) in oral form is well known and frequently used for good quality bowel cleansing before a colonoscopy, but it carries the potential risk of electrolyte disturbance and dehydration. Prucalopride mitigates severe constipation by promoting colon motility. We evaluated the hypothesis that prucalopride plus one single dose of 45 mL NaP could be used as an alternative bowel preparation. METHODS Consenting adult patients undergoing a screening colonoscopy were randomized to receive 90 mL NaP (90-NaP) in two split doses or prucalopride 2 mg plus 45 mL NaP (P-NaP). Patients completed a questionnaire about adverse gastrointestinal symptoms and acceptability for bowel preparation. The effectiveness of colon preparation was evaluated according to the Ottawa bowel preparation scale. RESULTS Bowel cleansing was achieved in 92 patients with 90-NaP and in 97 patients with P-NaP. There was no significant difference in bowel cleansing level and adverse gastrointestinal symptoms between the two groups. However, more patients in the P-NaP group were willing to undertake the same regimen for a subsequent colonoscopy bowel preparation than those in 90-NaP group (82/97; 85% vs 51/92; 55%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION The combination of 2 mg prucalopride and 45 mL NaP appeared to provide the same level of bowel cleansing, but it was more acceptable than the 90 mL NaP in split doses.
-
8.
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.
-
9.
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials challenging the usefulness of purgative preparation before small-bowel video capsule endoscopy.
Gkolfakis, P, Tziatzios, G, Dimitriadis, GD, Triantafyllou, K
Endoscopy. 2018;(7):671-683
Abstract
BACKGROUND The usefulness of purgative preparation before small-bowel video capsule endoscopy is controversial. We aimed to examine the effect of purgative preparation on small-bowel video capsule endoscopy outcomes. METHODS We performed literature searches in MEDLINE and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of purgative preparation (polyethylene glycol, sodium phosphate, others) vs. clear-liquid diet/fasting in patients undergoing small-bowel capsule endoscopy. Meta-analysis outcomes included the examination's diagnostic yield, small-bowel mucosal visualization quality, the examination's completion rate, and gastric and small-bowel transit times. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using a fixed- or random-effect model, as appropriate, and is shown as the risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI). RESULTS We identified 12 eligible trials with 17 sets of data including 1221 subjects. Significant heterogeneity was detected with no evidence of publication bias. As compared with clear-liquid diet, purgative bowel preparation did not increase capsule endoscopy diagnostic yield (RR 1.17 [95 %CI 0.97 to 1.40]; P = 0.11). Neither the small-bowel mucosal visualization quality (RR 1.14 [95 %CI 0.96 to 1.35]; P = 0.15) nor completion rate for the examination (RR 0.99 [95 %CI 0.95 to 1.04]; P = 0.76) significantly improved after purgative preparation. Purgatives also had no effect on video capsule endoscopy gastric and small-bowel transit times. CONCLUSIONS Our analysis challenges the usefulness of purgative preparation for improving the diagnostic yield of small-bowel video capsule endoscopy and the quality of small-bowel mucosal visualization.
-
10.
Bowel preparation in CT colonography: Is diet restriction necessary? A randomised trial (DIETSAN).
Bellini, D, De Santis, D, Caruso, D, Rengo, M, Ferrari, R, Biondi, T, Laghi, A
European radiology. 2018;(1):382-389
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To investigate whether diet restriction affects quality of colon cleansing and patient tolerance during reduced bowel preparation for CT colonography (CTC). METHODS Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were enrolled in this pragmatic, single-centre, randomised trial. All patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio, blocks of ten) to receive a reduced bowel preparation and faecal tagging with (Diet-Restriction-Group [DR]) or without (No-Diet-Restriction-Group [NDR]) dietary restriction. Five readers performed a blinded subjective image analysis, by means of 4-point Likert-scales from 0 (highest score) to 3 (worst score). Endpoints were the quality of large bowel cleansing and tolerance to the assigned bowel preparation regimen. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (URomLSDBAL1). RESULTS Ninety-five patients were randomly allocated to treatments (48 in NDR-group, 47 in DR-group). Both groups resulted in optimal colon cleansing. The mean residual stool (0.22, 95%CI 0.00-0.44) and fluid burden (0.39, 95%CI 0.25-0.53) scores for patients in DR-group were similar to those in patients in NDR-group (0.25, 95%CI 0.03-0.47 [p = 0.82] and 0.49, 95%CI 0.30-0.67 [p = 0.38], respectively). Tolerance was significantly better in NDR-group. CONCLUSION A reduced bowel preparation in association with faecal tagging and without any dietary restriction demonstrated optimal colon cleansing effectiveness for CTC, providing better patient compliance compared with dietary restriction. KEY POINTS • Dietary restriction in reduced bowel preparation regimen can be avoided. • The quality of colon cleansing is not affected by dietary restriction. • The quality of faecal tagging is not affected by dietary restriction. • Avoidance of dietary restriction improves patients' tolerance for CTC.