-
1.
Effect of Different Modalities of Purgative Preparation on the Diagnostic Yield of Small Bowel Capsule for the Exploration of Suspected Small Bowel Bleeding: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.
Rahmi, G, Cholet, F, Gaudric, M, Filippi, J, Duburque, C, Bramli, S, Quentin, V, Alavi, Z, Nowak, E, Saurin, JC, et al
The American journal of gastroenterology. 2022;(2):327-335
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The aim of our study was to compare clear liquid diet with 2 different polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel preparation methods regarding diagnostic yield of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) in patients with suspected small bowel bleeding (SBB). METHODS In this prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial, consecutive patients undergoing SBCE for suspected SBB between September 2010 and February 2016 were considered. Patients were randomly assigned to standard regimen, that is, clear fluids only (prep 1), standard regimen plus 500 mL PEG after SBCE ingestion (prep 2), or standard regimen plus 2 L PEG plus 500 mL PEG after SBCE ingestion (prep 3). The primary outcome was the detection of at least one clinically significant lesion in the small bowel. The quality of small bowel cleansing was assessed. A questionnaire on the clinical tolerance was filled by the patients. RESULTS We analyzed 834 patients. No significant difference was observed for detection of P1 or P2 small bowel lesions between prep1 group (40.5%), prep 2 group (40.2%), and prep 3 group (38.5%). Small bowel cleansing was improved in prep 2 and 3 groups compared with that in prep 1 group. Compliance to the preparation and tolerance was better in prep 2 group than in prep 3 group. DISCUSSION Small bowel purgative before SBCE allowed better quality of cleansing. However, it did not improve diagnostic yield of SBCE for suspected SBB.
-
2.
The clinical efficacy of external application of mirabilite and rhubarb combined with intrathoracic chemotherapy in treating malignant pleural effusion: A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.
Zhang, H, Jiang, M, Gao, L, Lin, Z
Medicine. 2021;(7):e24758
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is one of the commonest causes of an exudative pleural effusion. Breathlessness, dyspnea and other symptoms often seriously distress and affect the quality of life. The external application of mirabilite and rhubarb (EAMR) combined with intrathoracic infusion of cisplatin, as an alternative treatment for MPE, is popular in China. The study aims to assess its effectiveness and safety combined with intrathoracic chemotherapy. METHODS This study is a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. Patient visits were performed at baseline and days 14 and 28 after treatment. Clinical outcomes were measured after chest drain placement using the criterion of efficacy refer to WHO standard, and QLQ-C30 questionnaire. RESULTS Database records of patients treated in our institution for MPE between October, 2016 and March, 2019. The study included 84 eligible patients. They were categorized with a randomization schedule into treatment group (N = 42) and control group (N = 42). There is statistical significance in the comparison of the total effective rate between these 2 groups (66.67% vs 54.76%, P < .05). Furthermore, there is statistical significance in the comparison of items of Physical (1.95 ± 0.50 vs 2.19 ± 0.58%, P < .05), Pain (1.98 ± 0.42 vs 2.07 ± 0.32, P < .05), and Global Health (1.23 ± 0.64 vs 1.13 ± 0.23%, P < .05) between these 2 groups. None of the patients had adverse reactions such as skin allergy and chest tightness. CONCLUSIONS The total effective rate of treatment group using extra external application of mirabilite rhubarb powder is significantly higher than that of control group. The improvement of patients' clinical symptoms is greater in treatment group and no adverse reactions is found. Therefore, external application of mirabilite and rhubarb combined with intrathoracic infusion of cisplatin is an effective method for the treatment of MPE, which is worth popularizing.
-
3.
The Use of a PEG/Ascorbate Booster Following Standard Bowel Preparation Improves Visualization for Capsule Endoscopy in a Randomized, Controlled Study.
Mascarenhas-Saraiva, MJ, Oliveira, E, Mascarenhas-Saraiva, MN
The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology. 2021;(5):437-442
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The increasing use of capsule endoscopy (CE) to examine the gastrointestinal tract highlights the need to establish intestinal preparations that ensure optimal visualization while maximizing patient adherence. Thus, we assessed whether bowel preparation involving dietary restriction and a booster regimen produces adequate CE visualization in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind, prospective study of CE procedures at 2 tertiary-care centers. Patients were allocated to 3 groups: group 1 followed a clear liquid diet and fasting-based bowel preparation for the exploration (n = 55); group 2 followed the same procedure as group 1 and then ingested 1 L of a polyethylene glycol (PEG)/ascorbic acid booster solution when the capsule reached the small intestine (n = 55); and group 3 followed the same procedure but ingesting only 0.5 L of the booster solution (n = 56). The quality of visualization and the average gastric, orocecal and small-bowel transit times were evaluated. RESULTS A total of 166 patients participated in the study. Significantly higher quality of visualization (Park score) was obtained in group 3 (2.28 ± 0.59) than in group 1 (1.84 ± 0.54, P < .001), while there were no significant differences in the average gastric (range: 36.58- 48.32 min, P = .277), orocecal (range: 322.58-289.45 min, P = .072), and small-bowel transit time (range: 280.71-249.95 min, P = .286) between the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS Following a clear liquid diet and fasting-based bowel preparation for CE exploration, administering a booster solution of PEG/ascorbic acid after the capsule had reached the small intestine improves mucosal visualization and cleansing without affecting capsule transit times.
-
4.
The effectiveness of preoperative colon cleansing on post-operative surgical site infection after hip hemiarthroplasty.
Batibay, SG, Soylemez, S, Türkmen, İ, Bayram, Y, Camur, S
European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society. 2020;(5):1071-1076
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic mechanical bowel preparation in elderly patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty in a single training institution over a period of 2 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS The study was conducted in a prospective-randomised manner. All patients, who underwent primary hip hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture in our institution between 20 February 2015 and 29 December 2016, were included. B.T. Enema (sodium dihydrogen phosphate + disodium hydrogen phosphate) 135 ml (Yenisehir Laboratory, Ankara, Turkey) was used for colon cleansing. RESULTS Ninety-five patients were followed up for at least 1 year after surgery (16.3 ± 4.2 months). Of these, 46 were in the enema group and 49 were in the control group. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients were similar in both groups (p > 0.05). Infection rates between the two groups were not significantly different (p > 0.05). In addition, ASA, age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, duration of surgery, time to surgery, ambulation status and blood count did not have a significant effect on surgical site infections (p > 0.05). However, all infections in the enema group were monobacterial and were successfully treated, whereas two of the four infections in the control group were polymicrobial and could not be successfully treated. CONCLUSION Although preoperative colon cleansing did not reduce the overall incidence of post-operative infections, our study suggested that it may reduce polymicrobial infections after hip hemiarthroplasty. Polymicrobial infections after hip hemiarthroplasty seem to have worse prognosis. Therefore, the effectiveness of preoperative colon cleansing in remediating such infections must be investigated in a larger number of patients.
-
5.
The advantage of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution combined with lactulose in patients with long interval preparation-to-colonoscopy.
Yuanchao, H, Xueping, L, Tao, L, Jianping, N, Man, M
The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology. 2020;(1):23-29
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The main aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) solution combined with lactulose in bowel preparation to find a new method for colonoscopy preparation to improve the quality of colonoscopy in patients with long interval preparation-to-colonoscopy (P-C). MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded and placebo-controlled study was conducted. Three hundred sixty patients who were scheduled for colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. They were randomly divided into the PEG-lactulose group and the PEG-placebo group with 180 patients per arm. Two of the most common methods for estimating the quality of bowel preparation were the use of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and the measurement of the Bubble Scale and adenoma detection rate (ADR) as a secondary outcome of observation. RESULTS The PEG-lactulose group had a significant improvement in the quality of bowel preparation compared with the PEG-placebo group including colon cleanliness in interval P-C at 8 and 9 h (p<0.05) and bubble elimination in interval P-C at 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 h (p<0.05). Compared with the PEG-placebo group, the ADR (23.3% vs. 15.0%, p<0.05) and the size (≤5 mm) of the adenoma (45.2% vs. 18.5%, p<0.05) increased in the PEG-lactulose group, and there were significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION PEG solution combined with lactulose can improve the quality of colonoscopy in patients with long interval P-C to allow the patients to select more flexible colonoscopy time. It is worth further popularizing in clinical practice.
-
6.
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).
-
7.
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.
-
8.
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.
-
9.
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.
-
10.
Polyethylene Glycol-3350 (Miralax®)+1.9-L sports drink (Gatorade®)+2 tablets of bisacodyl results in inferior bowel preparation for colonoscopy compared with Polyethylene Glycol-Ascorbic Acid (MoviPrep®).
Khan, MA, Patel, KB, Nooruddin, M, Swanson, G, Fogg, L, Keshavarzian, A, Brown, M
The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology. 2018;(1):67-74
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-3350, approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only for constipation, combined with 1.9 L of sports drink (SD) (GatoradeR) and bisacodyl (B) is commonly used in outpatient practice for bowel preparation due to cited patient satisfaction and tolerability of this specific regimen. We aim to compare PEG-3350 (MiralaxR) with PEG-AA-based (MoviPrepR) in terms of efficacy, patient satisfaction, and the effects of these two regimen on serum electrolytes. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study is a prospective, single-blinded, block randomized trial comparing single-dose PEG-3350+SD+B to split-dose 2-L PEG-AA in the outpatient endoscopy unit in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Basic metabolic profiles were checked on the day of randomization and on the day of procedure. Patients completed a survey on the day of procedure. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by two endoscopists and a nurse present during the procedure. RESULTS We randomized 150 patients (74 PEG-3350+SD+B and 76 PEG-AA). The PEG-AA group had significantly higher BBPS scores in the right colon by Endoscopist 1, Nurse, and Endoscopist 2 (p 0.005, <0.000, 0.001) and in the left and transverse colon by Nurse and Endoscopist 2 (p 0.004, 0.26, 0.000, 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction or change in serum electrolytes between the two groups. CONCLUSION Use of single-dose PEG-3350+SD+B results in inferior bowel preparation for colonoscopy compared with split-dose PEGAA and does not provide any advantage in regards to patient satisfaction. We therefore recommend discontinuing the use of PEG 3350 for bowel preparation.