Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer

Effects of walking exercise on bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy: evidence from systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of walking exercise on bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Ovid, The Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, and Chinese BioMedical Database were searched from their inception to January 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) examining the effects of walking exercise in patients undergoing colonoscopy were considered for inclusion. After screening literature, extracting data and evaluating methodological quality, RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

Results

Five studies (four RCTs and one CCTs) involved 984 participants were included. The results of meta-analysis demonstrated that the walking exercise group showed significantly higher improvements in the rate of adequate bowel preparation than the control group (risk ratio [RR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.03–1.58], P < 0.05). In addition, the walking exercise group had lower incidence of vomiting (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.23–0.68], P < 0.01) and abdominal pain (RR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.29–0.90], P < 0.05) with lower heterogeneity.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis provided specific evidence that walking exercise during bowel preparation can improve the rate of adequate bowel preparation and reduce the incidence of vomiting and abdominal pain in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Since the conclusion of this meta-analysis was drawn based on the limited number of high-quality RCTs, more rigorous RCTs should be conducted in the future.

Quality indicators in enteroscopy. Enteroscopy procedure

Within the project "Quality Indicators in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy," under the leadership of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD), our goal is to propose the procedures and the structure, process, and outcome indicators required for the application and assessment of quality in enteroscopy. To this end a search was performed for quality indicators in enteroscopy. Quality of evidence was measured by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system, and classified as high, moderate, low, and very low. A total of 10 process indicators (one preprocedure, eight procedure, one postprocedure) were identified for enteroscopy, with appropriate indication and choice of most efficient route being most significant.

A Randomized, Endoscopist-Blinded, Prospective Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Patient Tolerability between Bowel Preparation Protocols Using Sodium Picosulfate Magnesium Citrate and Polyethylene-Glycol (1 L and 2 L) for Colonoscopy

Patient compliance during bowel preparation is important for successful colonoscopy. Bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG), the most commonly used solution for cleansing, involves the unpleasant ingestion of a large amount of liquid. Sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (SP-MC) solution is an alternative option with better palatability than PEG. Therefore, in this study, we compared the efficacy and patient tolerability among the following three bowel preparation protocols: 2 L PEG-ascorbic acid (ASc), 1 L PEG-ASc plus bisacodyl, and SP-MC 340 mL plus bisacodyl. We conducted a randomized prospective endoscopist-blinded study between August 2018 and January 2019. A total of 311 patients were randomly classified into three groups according to the above-described bowel preparation protocols. To evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, we used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. The degree of symptoms and the patients' satisfaction with each bowel preparation method were investigated using a questionnaire completed before sedation for colonoscopy. The baseline characteristics were similar among the three groups. There was no significant difference in the bowel preparation quality among the three groups. However, the incidence of symptoms, such as abdominal fullness and pain, was significantly lower (P = 0.006 and 0.027, respectively) while the patients' satisfaction rate was significantly higher (P = 0.012) in the SP-MC plus bisacodyl group than in the two PEG groups. In this study, the efficacy of the SP-MC plus bisacodyl solution was similar to that of the PEG solutions. However, patient tolerability and satisfaction were better in the SP-MC plus bisacodyl group than in the other groups. In conclusion, the use of SP-MC plus bisacodyl bowel preparation solution might be a better method for providing good intestinal cleansing and improving patient compliance.

Baseline Colonoscopy Findings Associated With 10-Year Outcomes in a Screening Cohort Undergoing Colonoscopy Surveillance

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Few studies have evaluated long-term outcomes of ongoing colonoscopic screening and surveillance in a screening population. We aimed to determine the 10-year risk for advanced neoplasia (defined as adenomas ≥10mm, adenomas with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, or colorectal cancer [CRC]) and assessed whether baseline colonoscopy findings were associated with long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We collected data from the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Study on 3121 asymptomatic veterans (50-75 years old) who underwent a screening colonoscopy from 1994 through 1997 at 13 medical centers and were then followed for 10 years or until death. We included 1915 subjects with at least 1 surveillance colonoscopy and estimated cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia by Kaplan-Meier curves. We then fit a longitudinal joint model to estimate risk of advanced neoplasia at each subsequent examination after baseline, adjusting for multiple colonoscopies within individuals.

RESULTS

Through 10 years of follow-up, there were 146 individuals among all baseline colonoscopy groups found to have at least 1 incident advanced neoplasia. The cumulative 10-year incidence of advanced neoplasia was highest among those with baseline CRC (43.7%; 95% CI 13.0%-74.4%), followed by those with baseline advanced adenoma (AA) (21.9%; 95% CI 15.7-28.1). The cumulative 10-year incidence of advanced neoplasia was 6.3% (95% CI 4.1%-8.5%) and 4.1% (95% CI 2.7%-5.4%) for baseline 1 to 2 small adenomas (<1cm, and without villous histology or high-grade dysplasia) and no neoplasia, respectively (log-rank P = .10). After adjusting for prior surveillance, the risk of advanced neoplasia at each subsequent examination was not significantly increased in veterans with 1 or 2 small adenomas at baseline (odds ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.67-1.41) compared with veterans with no baseline neoplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline screening colonoscopy findings associate with advanced neoplasia within 10 years. Individuals with only 1 or 2 small adenomas at baseline have a low risk of advanced neoplasia over 10 years. Alternative surveillance strategies, could be considered for these individuals.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: an evolving paradigm

The year 1969 marked a revolution in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). It is when Dr Wolff developed the colonoscope and quickly realized its potential in both diagnosis and treatment of colonic neoplasms. Over the past 50 years there has been exponential increase in utilization of colonoscopy with over 1 million colonoscopies performed annually throughout Australasia. Endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions has been proven to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal. Although timing and frequency of surveillance colonoscopy plays a crucial role in risk reduction of CRC, this is dependent upon the findings of the index colonoscopy. The goal of screening colonoscopy is to detect CRC and identify and remove pre-malignant neoplasms that risk progression to CRC. With increasing uptake of bowel screening throughout Australasia, there is increasing pressure to ensure all endoscopists and endoscopy units perform at a universal high-quality. All too often high demand and constant delays compromise colonoscopy quality. Without clear and concise quality indicators with transparent measurement and audit, these flaws can quickly jeopardize screening goals and patient outcomes. This review aims to explore six key quality indicators and explore the evidence behind the current recommended standards. These key indicators include; rate of adequate bowel preparation, caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, complication rates and surveillance intervals.

Undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may influence practice recommendations. It is therefore important to evaluate the completeness of financial conflict of interest (FCOI) declarations among CPG authors.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments to authors of endoscopy guidelines published by 5 GI societies between 2014 and 2017. For each author we identified payments using the disclosure section of CPGs and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMS-OP) database. We calculated the prevalence, monetary value, and type of declared and undeclared payments among authors. Payments were assessed for the calendar year of and before publication.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven CPGs were included in the analysis comprising 569 author entries (91 unique individuals; 66.43% men, 92.6% physicians, 66.4% academically affiliated). Four hundred fifty-one episodes (79%) involved FCOIs, 451 (79%) had undisclosed FCOIs in the CMS-OP, and 445 (77%) had FCOIs relevant to a CPG recommendation. The median undisclosed payment value was $4807.26 (interquartile range, $334.84-$20,579.75). Male authors (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-3.39) and academically affiliated authors (odds ratio, 8.87; 95% confidence interval, 5.57-14.13) were significantly more likely to have undeclared payments (P < .001). No CPGs met all National Academy of Medicine criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing concerns about the accuracy of the CMS-OP, there are substantial discrepancies between industry-reported payments and author self-disclosure. Additionally, there is a high prevalence of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to these authors. Given the potential impact of these discrepancies and undisclosed payments on CPGs, more accurate reporting and alternative strategies for managing FCOI are needed.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the addition of lubiprostone to bowel preparation before colonoscopy

AIM

Adequate bowel preparation is essential to the quality of colonoscopy. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of the addition of lubiprostone to the bowel preparation process prior to colonoscopy.

METHODS

Online databases, namely, PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library, were searched for randomized controlled trials that assessed the additive effect of lubiprostone on the quality of colon preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Each included study was evaluated by the Jadad score to assess the quality of the study. The primary outcome was bowel preparation efficacy, defined as the proportion of patients with an excellent or poor preparation. The secondary outcomes included the length of the colonoscopy, polyp detection, and any adverse effects.

RESULTS

In total, 5 articles published between 2008 and 2016 fulfilled the selection criteria. The addition of lubiprostone to the bowel cleansing process significantly increased the proportion of patients with an excellent preparation (risk ratio [RR] = 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.40-2.02, P < .00001) but did not decrease the procedural time or increase the polyp detection rate (mean difference = -0.52, 95% CI: -3.74-2.69, P = .75; RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.96-1.42, P = .13, respectively). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with any adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The addition of lubiprostone to the bowel preparation regimen prior to colonoscopy is effective and safe.

Alarming endoscopic data in young and older asymptomatic people: Results of an open access, unlimited age colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer

There is a lack of a national organized screening program for colorectal cancer in Greece, and asymptomatic detection is usually the result of individual decisions. The collection of epidemiologic endoscopic data from a population of interest would therefore provide valuable information for future treatment guidance, especially during periods of economic austerity. The current cross-sectional study included 380 asymptomatic, average risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy for the first time, during the period of one year in a tertiary public hospital in Athens. Descriptive and analytic epidemiologic data were analyzed. The prevalence of adenomas and advanced lesions were compared between the younger and older cohort, and a regression model was applied for risk evaluation. The mean age of participants was 63 years, and 53% were male. A significant proportion of patients presented with polyps (51.5%) and 25% of them had lesions in the proximal colon. The prevalence of adenomas and advanced adenomas was 29.5 and 11.8%, respectively. Similar high prevalence rates of lesions were identified in the cohort of individuals <50 years of age and the older cohort (>50 years of age). Regression models identified age, number and size of polyps as the major risk factors for the detection of adenomas. The increase of advanced lesions in the older and younger cohort requires confirmation by larger studies. Overall, the results of the present study indicate the requirement for a well-organized screening colonoscopy program starting from as early as 40 years of age. This program may confer an additional endoscopic burden with socioeconomic consequences in a country with limited health resources.

Efficacy of mosapride citrate with a split dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Old age is a risk factor of suboptimal bowel preparation. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mosapride citrate with a split dose of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients (aged ≥65 years) before they underwent a colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective investigator-blinded randomized study was conducted from November 2017 to October 2018. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups, a mosapride group (mosapride citrate with a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid) or a non-mosapride group (a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid alone). Mosapride citrate 15 mg (Gastin CR) was administered once with each split-dose of the bowel preparation. The bowel preparation quality was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

RESULTS

A total of 257 patients were finally included and analyzed in our study. The total BBPS score was significantly higher in the mosapride group than in the non-mosapride group (8.53 vs 8.24, P = .033). The BBPS scores of the right colon and mid-colon were 2.75 vs 2.61 (P = .044) and 2.89 vs 2.79 (P = .030), respectively. The rate of adequate bowel preparation (BBPS ≥ 6) was similar in both groups (98.4% vs 98.5%, P = .968), while the rate of excellent bowel preparation (BBPS = 9) was higher in the mosapride group than in the non-mosapride group (73.8% vs 61.1%, P = .029). The total incidence of adverse events during the administration of the bowel cleansing agent, particularly abdominal fullness, was lower in the mosapride group (11.9% vs 30.5%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The administration of mosapride citrate with a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid in elderly patients showed an increase in bowel preparation efficacy and reduced adverse events, particularly abdominal fullness, during the administration of a bowel cleansing agent.

Comparison Between an Oral Sulfate Solution and a 2 L of Polyethylene Glycol/Ascorbic Acid as a Split Dose Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of an oral sulfate solution (OSS) versus 2 L of polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (2L-PEG/Asc) for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy.

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial was performed. The primary outcome was the rate of successful bowel cleansing, evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes were examination time, polyp, and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR), tolerability, and safety. Ease of use, palatability, intention to reuse, and satisfaction were evaluated using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 187 participants were randomized to receive either OSS (n=93) or 2L-PEG/Asc (n=94). Successful bowel cleansing was achieved in 86.0% (80/93) of the OSS group, which was noninferior to the 2L-PEG/Asc group (88.3%, 83/94), with a difference of -2.3% by ITT analysis [95% confidence interval (CI) -12.0 to +7.4]. The withdrawal time of the OSS group was significantly shorter than that of the 2L-PEG/Asc group (11.8±5.2 vs. 14.3±8.5; P=0.016). Ease of use, palatability, intention to reuse, and satisfaction were similar between the 2 groups. Adverse events were also similar between the 2 groups. Mucosal erythema (4.3%) and aphthous lesions (2.1%) were found only in the 2L-PEG/Asc group.

CONCLUSIONS

OSS was as effective as 2L-PEG/Asc for successful bowel cleansing and had acceptable tolerability. OSS is a promising and safe low-volume preparation alternative for colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02761213.).

Augmentation with pre-emptive macrogol-based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial

Background and Aim

The addition of a laxative prior to a standard bowel preparation (BP) has shown variable results in efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the BP. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of a macrogol-augmented BP (M-BP) with standard BP for routine colonoscopy in unselected patients.

Methods

Adults undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to either M-BP (one sachet of macrogol-based osmotic laxative (MBOL) twice daily for eight doses prior to standard preparation) or BP (split-dose of polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate). Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Ottawa BP scale. Risk factors for poor BP, patient satisfaction, and tolerance were recorded.

Results

This randomized trial was stopped due to futility after 14 months; at that point, 92 subjects were randomized to the study arm and 102 to the control arm. M-BP had a success rate of 71.7% (95% CI: 58.5-82.7%), while the BP had a success rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 54.9-78.8%), with a Pearson χ ² test P-value of 0.639, which exceeded the cut-off for futility (0.313). In subgroup analyses, there were statistically significant decreases in the rates of successful BP in patients taking regular opioids and regular laxatives. Both preparations were well tolerated, with no difference between groups (BP - 5.3% and M-BP - 6.6% P = 0.66).

Conclusion

The addition of MBOL prior to a standard BP in unselected subjects does not significantly improve bowel cleanliness at routine colonoscopy. The role of this laxative in patients at high risk of poor preparation warrants further investigation.

Rethinking the Re-Prep: Attitudes Toward Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests After Inadequate Bowel Preparation

OBJECTIVES

To assess patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening with stool-based tests after initial colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation.

METHODS

An online scenario-based survey of adults aged 45 to 75 years at average risk for colorectal cancer was performed.

RESULTS

When presented with a hypothetical scenario of screening colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation, 59% of respondents chose stool-based testing as a next step, 29% preferred a repeat colonoscopy within a year, and 12% preferred a repeat colonoscopy in 10 years (N = 1,080).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should consider offering stool-based screening tests as an alternative to repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation.

Cloud-based multi-media systems for patient education and adherence: a pilot study to explore patient compliance with colonoscopy procedure preparation

Technology based patient education and adherence approaches are increasingly utilized to instruct and remind patients to prepare correctly for medical procedures. This study examines the interaction between two primary factors: patterns of patient adherence to challenging medical preparation procedures; and the demonstrated, measurable potential for cloud-based multi-media information technology (IT) interventions to improve patient adherence. An IT artifact was developed through prior design science research to serve information, reminders, and online video instruction modules to patients. The application was tested with 297 patients who were assessed clinically by physicians. Results indicate modest potential (43.4% relative improvement) for the IT-based approach for improving patient adherence to endoscopy preparations. Purposively designed cloud-based applications hold promise for aiding patients with complex medical procedure preparation. Health care provider involvement in the design and evaluation of a patient application may be an effective strategy to produce medical evidence and encourage the adoption of adherence apps.

The effect of quality of segmental bowel preparation on adenoma detection rate

Background

The effectiveness in surveillance colonoscopy largely depends on the quality of bowel preparation. We aimed to investigate the quality of bowel preparation segmentally and its effect on Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rate (AADR) at corresponding bowel segments.

Methods

This is a single-centered and cross-sectional study. A consecutive of 5798 patients who underwent colonoscopy examination were included. Bowel preparation was evaluated based on Bowel Bubble Scale (BBS) in general and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) in each segment (right side, transverse and left side of colon) and total BBPS scores. The quality of bowel preparation was correlated with ADR and AADR.

Results

Four thousand nine hundred forty colonoscopies (14,820 bowel segments) were included in the final analysis. In which 30.9% scored 3, 57.5% scored 2, 11.2% scored 1 and 0.4% scored 0 on basis of BBPS. For each score, ADR were 10.8, 7.7, 4.9 and 3.2%, respectively; whereas AADR were 4.5, 2.8,1.8 and 1.6% (P < 0.05). 36.9% of the colonoscopies showed presence of minimal bubbles and 34.3% with no bubble. For bowels without bubbles and with a large amount of bubbles, ADR were 28.3 and 20.0% respectively; and AADR were 13.3 and 7.1% respectively.

Conclusions

Segmental bowels’ cleanliness and the amount of bubbles in bowels significantly affect ADR and AADR. The better the bowel preparation at each segment is and the less bubbles in the bowel there are, the higher ADR and AADR we got. We suggest repeating colonoscopy if any segment of the bowel preparation is poor, or if there is more bubbles, even if the total score of BBPS indicates good or fair bowel preparation.

Can a 1-day clear liquid diet with a split -dose polyethylene glycol overcome conventional practice patterns during the preparation for screening colonoscopy?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

A successful screening colonoscopy is closely linked to the quality of a bowel preparation. In this study, we aimed to determine the impact of a 1-day clear liquid diet (CLD) compared to a 3-day combined diet (CMD) accompanied by a split-dose regimen of polyethylene glycol and electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) for screening colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study. Patients referred for screening colonoscopy were randomized to four groups as a 1-day CLD+PEG-ELS vs. a 1-day CLD+sulfate free (SF)-PEG-ELS and a 3-day CMD+PEG-ELS vs. a 3-day CMD+SF-PEG-ELS. An assessment of the quality of colon cleaning, tolerability to the preparation, and symptoms related to the preparation were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 506 patients were enrolled in this study. The quality of bowel preparation was significantly inferior in the CMD+PEG-ELS group than CLD+PEG-ELS (p=0.004) and CMD+SF-PEG-ELS groups (p=0.007). There were no statistical differences among the groups in terms of the polyp detection rate. With respect to an easy rating of diet following and the consumption of laxative, there were no significant differences among the four groups. Gastric fullness and nausea/vomiting were pointed out much more, especially in the SF-PEG-ELS users (p=0.008 and p=0.004, respectively).

CONCLUSION

A 1-day CLD was not inferior to a 3-day CMD for colonoscopy preparation in terms of bowel cleaning, the polyp detection rate, and patient tolerance.

The role of oral simethicone on the adenoma detection rate and other quality indicators of screening colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Combining simethicone (SIM) with a colon preparation agent has been shown to improve mucosal visibility during screening colonoscopy, but its effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains unclear. SIM is commonly used through the endoscope to eliminate bubbles during endoscopy. However, this practice recently has been associated with endoscope-transmitted infections. Our aims were to determine the role of SIM added to a polyethylene glycol preparation on the ADR, procedure times, colon preparation, and intraprocedural use of SIM.

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, clinical trial of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. Patients with a high risk of colorectal cancer were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 different preparations: polyethylene glycol plus SIM or polyethylene glycol. Two endoscopists blinded to patient preparation regimens scored its quality by using the Boston Bowel Preparation scale (BBPS) and the bubble scale. Interobserver agreement was calculated. The polyp detection rate, ADR, intraprocedural use of SIM, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time were recorded. For study purposes, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time were combined to determine the effective procedure time.

RESULTS

No significant difference between the polyethylene glycol plus SIM and polyethylene glycol arms was seen regarding the ADR (33.3% vs 38.8%; P = .881) and effective procedure time (759.3 ± 253.1 seconds vs 800.2 ± 459.6 seconds; P = .373), respectively. Intraprocedural use of SIM as well as the bubble scale score were significantly lower in the polyethylene glycol plus SIM arm (1.6% vs 48.9%; P ≤ .05) and (0.1 vs 2.1; P ≤ .05), respectively. Conversely, no difference was found in the BBPS scores. The interobserver agreement for both scores was strong (bubble scale score kappa = .537; P < .05; BBPS score kappa = .184; P <.05).

CONCLUSION

Adding SIM to a polyethylene glycol preparation did not improve the ADR or effective procedure time. Nevertheless, it resulted in lower bubble scale scores, and more importantly, in less intraprocedural use of SIM. This simple and inexpensive intervention may have the potential to reduce the risk of endoscope-transmitted infections. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03119168.).

Impact of Colonoscopy Preparation Video on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale Score

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and the third most common cancer in men and the second most common cancer among women. Early detection of localized adenocarcinoma and adenomatous polyps helps reduce the mortality related to colon cancer. According to the American Gastroenterological Association, colonoscopy (CSPY) is the gold standard in screening for CRC. To improve the results of screening, the CSPY preparation (prep) needs to be optimal. This study was undertaken to determine whether a supplemental standardized educational video on bowel preparation in the viewer's native language would improve bowel preparation at the time of CSPY. After institutional review board approval, the records of adult patients who presented to the gastroenterology clinic were reviewed. Patients who underwent a CSPY were assigned according to whether they watched a supplemental educational video on CSPY bowel preparation in their native language. This video reflects the same information provided in written and verbal form at the time of CSPY scheduling. Bowel prep was rated by the endoscopist using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and quantifies the adequacy of the preprocedure bowel prep. Participant characteristics and BBPS scores were statistically assessed for significant differences. We identified a total of 186 patients, 91 in March 2015 (pre-video intervention) and 95 in March 2016 (post-video intervention). Mean BBPS score was 7.9 and 8.54 for the March 2015 and 2016 group, respectively (p value of .0039). Although there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups with concern to gender and age, the racial makeup and BBPS score were statistically different. Multivariate analysis was performed. There was no interaction between gender or race and year effect to account for any difference in that factors' performance. Thus, it can be implied that there is not a consistent race effect but there is a consistent gender effect with females having higher success rates, regardless of video intervention (p value of .003). After controlling for both gender and race, the year effect is modestly significant (p value of .025), with the post-video subjects having higher prep success rates. A supplemental educational video incorporated into precolonoscopy teaching may provide a standardized method of effectively conveying simple bowel prep instructions in an efficient manner. This study demonstrated that using such a video produced significant results in improving the quality of bowel preparation.

Efficacy and safety of a ready-to-drink bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

We performed a randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, multicenter, non-inferiority (NI) study to compare the safety and efficacy of a ready-to-drink formulation of sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (SPMC oral solution) with a powder formulation (P/MC powder) for oral solution.

METHODS

Eligible participants (adults undergoing elective colonoscopy) were randomized 1:1 to split-dose SPMC oral solution or P/MC powder. The primary efficacy endpoint assessed overall colon-cleansing quality with the Aronchick Scale (AS), and the key secondary efficacy endpoint rated quality of right colon cleansing with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Assessments were performed by a treatment-blinded endoscopist. Tolerability was assessed using the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Safety assessments included adverse events and laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

The study included 901 participants: 448 for SPMC oral solution; 453 for P/MC powder. SPMC oral solution demonstrated non-inferiority to P/MC powder {87.7% (393/448) responders versus 81.5% (369/453) responders [difference (95% confidence interval): 6.3% (1.8, 10.9)]}. The key secondary efficacy objective assessing the right colon was also met. According to the prespecified hierarchical testing, after meeting the primary and key secondary objectives, SPMC oral solution was tested for superiority to P/MC powder for the primary endpoint (p = 0.0067). SPMC oral solution was well tolerated. Most common adverse events were nausea (3.1% versus 2.9%), headache (2.7% versus 3.1%), hypermagnesemia (2.0% versus 5.1%), and vomiting (1.3% versus 0.7%) for SPMC oral solution and P/MC powder, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Ready-to-drink SPMC oral solution showed superior efficacy of overall colon cleansing compared with P/MC powder, with similar safety and tolerability.[ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03017235.].

Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures both for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, for which performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.

Information experiences, needs, and preferences of colonoscopy patients: A pre-colonoscopy survey

Better pre-colonoscopy education may lead to improved bowel preparation, decreased anxiety, and a willingness to go direct-to-colonoscopy. We assessed information experiences, needs, and preferences of patients undergoing colonoscopy.A self-administered survey was distributed between 08/2015 and 06/2016 to patients in Winnipeg, Canada when they attended an outpatient colonoscopy. The amount, type, helpfulness, and satisfaction with information provided were analyzed. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess predictors of satisfaction with various aspects of the information received, as well as overall satisfaction with the provided information.Although the majority of the 1580 respondents were satisfied with the information they received, only 68% of respondents coming for a repeat colonoscopy and 59% of those coming for first colonoscopy perceived receiving just the right amount of information from their endoscopy doctor. One quarter or less of the respondents indicated they received just the right amount of information from any source other than their colonoscopy doctor. 38% coming for a first colonoscopy and 44% coming for a repeat colonoscopy indicated they received no information from their family physician. Those coming for their first colonoscopy had a lower average score (9.7 vs 11.1; P < .001) for amount of information received (scale 0-15), were less satisfied with the information they received (P = .005) and found the information to be less clear (P = .004).Many patients going for colonoscopy in a large urban practice are inadequately informed about the various aspects of the procedure and it is worse for those going for first rather than repeat colonoscopy.

Favorable outcomes of prepackaged low-residue diet on bowel preparation for colonoscopy: Endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

2 L polyethylene glycol plus an ascorbic acid (PEGA) is known to be as effective. However, 2 L polyethylene glycol-based regimens are often still difficult for patients to tolerate. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate the potential of 1 L PEGA with prepackaged low-residue diet (PLD) as an alternative to 2 L PEGA before colonoscopy.

METHODS

The subjects were randomly assigned to either of the two groups. The 2 L PEGA group received 2 L PEGA split regimen. The 1 L PEGA with PLD group received PLD on the day preceding colonoscopy and 1 L PEGA. All endoscopic procedures were performed by one physician who did not know patients allocation. Bowel preparation status were graded using Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS). A questionnaire regarding tolerability and safety was administered. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03329339).

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients completed the study (86 in the 2 L PEGA group and 87 in the 1 L PEGA with PLD group). Bowel preparation was adequate in 88.4% (76/86) of patients in the 2 L PEGA group and 93.1% of patients in the 1 L PEGA with PLD group (81/87, P = 0.28). The patients in the 1 L PEGA with PLD group had higher whole Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (P = 0.02) and expressed more satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to compliance or safety.

CONCLUSION

1 L PEGA with PLD showed equivalent efficacy, greater satisfaction, and more willingness to repeat compared with 2 L PEGA for bowel preparation.

A systematic review and cost analysis of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel cleansing in five European countries

Background: Colonoscopies are carried out for a range of reasons including for the detection of colon cancer and investigation of abdominal and bowel related symptoms. Inadequate preparation can increase the burden of repeat procedures.Methods: A systematic review aimed to identify the rate of repeat colonoscopies due to inadequate bowel preparation in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. The information obtained populated a decision analytic model to estimate the cost implications of inadequate bowel cleansing in the same five countries. The model explored scenarios by comparing one and two-litre polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation.Results: The systematic review identified 14 eligible studies reporting on the proportion of patients with inadequate bowel cleansing indicated for a repeat procedure. Data were available for Italy (27.5%-35.9%), Spain (63%) and the UK (24.5%) only. The decision analytic model demonstrates that improving the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing at first colonoscopy is likely to generate cost savings.Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, increasing the proportion of people who have adequate bowel cleansing at index colonoscopy will likely have financial benefits in Italy, Spain and the UK. A paucity of data, for France and Germany, limits the robustness of conclusions in these countries.

Evaluating Information Quality of Revised Patient Education Information on Colonoscopy: It Is New But Is It Improved?

BACKGROUND

Previous research indicates that patients and their families have many questions about colonoscopy that are not fully answered by existing resources. We developed revised forms on colonoscopy bowel preparation and on the procedure itself.

OBJECTIVE

As the goal of the revised materials is to have improved information relative to currently available information, we were interested in how revised information compared with what is currently available in terms of information quality and patient preference.

METHODS

Participants were asked to review one at a time the Revised and Current versions of Colonoscopy bowel preparation instructions (study 1) and About Colonoscopy (study 2). The order of administration of the Revised and Current versions was randomly counterbalanced to assess order effects. Respondents rated each form along the following dimensions: amount, clarity, trustworthiness, readability and understandability, how new or familiar the information was, and reassurance. Participants were asked which form they preferred and 4 questions about why they preferred it. Open-ended questions asked participants to describe likes and dislikes of the forms and suggestions for improvement.

RESULTS

The study 1 and study 2 samples were similar. Overall, in study 1, 62.4% preferred the Revised form, 28.1% preferred the Current form, and 6.7% were not sure. Overall, in study 2, 50.5% preferred the Revised form, 31.1% preferred the Current form, and 18.4% were not sure. Almost 75% of those in study 1 who received the Revised form first, preferred it, compared with less than half of those who received it first in study 2. In study 1, 75% of those without previous colonoscopy experience preferred the Revised form, compared with more than half of those who had previously undergone a colonoscopy. The study 1 logistic regression analysis demonstrated that participants were more likely to prefer the Revised form if they had viewed it first and had no previous experience with colonoscopy. In study 2, none of the variables assessed were associated with a preference for the Revised form. In comparing the 2 forms head-to-head, participants who preferred the Revised form in study 1 rated it as clearer compared with those who preferred the Current form. Finally, many participants who preferred the Revised form indicated in the open-ended questions that they liked it because it had more information than the Current form and that it had good visual information.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is one of the first to evaluate 2 different patient education resources in a head-to-head comparison using the same participants in a within-subjects design. This approach was useful in comparing revised educational information with current resources. Moving forward, this knowledge translation approach of a head-to-head comparison of 2 different information sources could be taken to develop and refine information sources on other health issues.

Use of smartphone applications to improve quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction Smartphone-based applications (apps) have been used to improve the quality of bowel preparation (prep) but the success rates have been variable. We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of smartphone apps on bowel preparation.

Methods Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane) were reviewed for eligible studies of smartphone apps versus standard education before colonoscopy. The following outcomes were analyzed: pooled rate of adequacy of bowel prep among both arms and Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS) when reported. Pooled analysis was reported as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference in random effect model with Review Manager 5.3 (P ≤ 0.05 for statistical significance).

Results Six studies were eligible with smartphone app (810 patients) vs. standard education (855 patients, control group) for bowel prep. The smartphone app group had a higher proportion of adequate bowel prep compared to the control group: 87.5 % vs 77.5 % (five studies), pooled OR 2.67; 95 %CI 1.00 – 7.13 with P = 0.05. There was substantial heterogeneity in studies with I 2 = 78 %. When analysis was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), smartphone app users had a numerically higher rate of bowel cleansing: 87.1 % vs 76.9 %; however, pooled OR was not statistically significant (OR 2.66, 95 %CI 0.92 – 7.69, P = 0.07). When studies using BBPS were evaluated (n = 3), smartphone app users had higher mean scores (better bowel prep) with a mean difference of 0.9 (95 %CI 0.5 – 1.3), which was statistically significant (P < 0.01).

Conclusion The smartphone app is a novel educational tool that can assist in achieving adequate and better bowel cleansing before colonoscopy.

Factors Influencing the Adequacy of Bowel Preparation in Patients With Developmental Disabilities

Background

The rate of inadequate bowel preparation in the general population is approximately 23%. As more individuals with developmental disabilities enter late adulthood, a concomitant rise in endoscopic procedures for this population, including screening colonoscopies, is anticipated. However, there are sparse data on the adequacy of bowel preparation in patients with developmental disabilities.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 91 patients with developmental disabilities who underwent colonoscopy from 2006 to 2014 was performed. Bowel preparation adequacy from these procedures was evaluated, together with other data, including age, developmental disability diagnoses, procedure type, indication and setting.

Results

Mean age at the time of endoscopy was 52.6 ± 13.4 years, with an age range of 18 - 74 years. Inadequate bowel preparation was found in approximately 51% of documented cases. Outpatients were more likely to have adequate bowel preparation compared to inpatients, with an odds ratio of 2.75 (95% confidence interval: 1.14 - 6.62, P = 0.022). No other major factors identified had any statistically significant influence on the adequacy of bowel preparation.

Conclusion

Over half of patients with developmental disabilities undergoing colonoscopy had inadequate bowel preparations in our study, which is more than twice the rate for the general population. Furthermore, outpatients were 2.75 times more likely to have adequate bowel preparation compared to inpatients. Further studies are recommended to improve endoscopic practices for this patient population.

No Interval Cancers in Endoscopic Practice

Colonoscopy is long time the most preferred method for CRC screening along with diagnosis and treatment for a range of colon diseases. Based on its difficulty in visualizing precursor CRC lesions, mostly those located on the right colon, this method can be subject of improvement. The colonoscopy quality can be influenced by many factors such as colon preparation, retraction time, the colonoscopists medical training and knowledges as well as the performance of endoscopy equipment. The bad quality of colonoscopy will result in the emergence of interval cancers defined, based on the author, as cancers that appear at 3-5 years up to 10 years from the colonoscopy procedure. Interval cancers have predominantly incriminated both the colonoscopy quality and the clinician competences and less the tumor biology. Subsequently there were set quality indicators of colonoscopy in order to raise the quality of the exploration. Among the important indicators, proving their utility in studies, the ADR (adenoma detection rate) is most commonly used along with PDR (polyp detection rate) and APC (adenoma per colonoscopy). Following the purpose of obtaining a higher colonoscopy quality the medical units should keep in check all indicators. Furthermore, there should be an active involvement in an additional training of non-conforming medical personnel or even restrain of practice, given the medical legal actions that have interval cancers as a main cause.

Sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol before elective colonoscopy in outpatients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To determine the best option for bowel preparation [sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol (PEG)] for elective colonoscopy in adult outpatients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines was performed using Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Central, Cinahl and Lilacs. No restrictions were placed for country, year of publication or language. The last search in the literature was performed on November 20^th, 2017. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. The subjects included were adult outpatients who underwent bowel cleansing for elective colonoscopy. The included studies compared sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) and PEG for bowel preparation. Exclusion criteria were the inclusion of inpatients or groups with specific conditions, failure to mention patient status (outpatient or inpatient) or dietary restrictions, and permission to have unrestricted diet on the day prior to the exam. Primary outcomes were bowel cleaning success and/or tolerability of colon preparation. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, polyp and adenoma detection rates. Data on intention-to-treat were extracted by two independent authors and risk of bias assessed through the Jadad scale. Funnel plots, Egger’s test, Higgins’ test (I²) and sensitivity analyses were used to assess reporting bias and heterogeneity. The meta-analysis was performed by computing risk difference (RD) using Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with fixed-effects (FE) and random-effects (RE) models. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) version 6.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration) was the software chosen to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

662 records were identified but only 16 trials with 6200 subjects were included for the meta-analysis. High heterogeneity among studies was found and sensitivity analysis was needed and performed to interpret data. In the pooled analysis, SPMC was better for bowel cleaning [MH FE, RD 0.03, IC (0.01, 0.05), P = 0.003, I² = 33%, NNT 34], for tolerability [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.03, 0.13), P = 0.002, I² = 88%, NNT 13] and for adverse events [MH RE, RD 0.13, IC (0.05, 0.22), P = 0.002, I² = 88%, NNT 7]. There was no difference in regard to polyp and adenoma detection rates. Additional analyses were made by subgroups (type of regimen, volume of PEG solution and dietary recommendations). SPMC demonstrated better tolerability levels when compared to PEG in the following subgroups: “day-before preparation” [MH FE, RD 0.17, IC (0.13, 0.21), P < 0.0001, I² = 0%, NNT 6], “preparation in accordance with time interval for colonoscopy” [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.15), P = 0.02, I² = 54%, NNT 13], when compared to “high-volume PEG solutions” [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.14), I² = 89%, P = 0.02, NNT 13] and in the subgroup “liquid diet on day before” [MH RE, RD 0.14, IC (0.06,0.22), P = 0.0006, I² = 81%, NNT 8]. SPMC was also found to cause fewer adverse events than PEG in the “high-volume PEG solutions” [MH RE, RD -0.18, IC (-0.30, -0.07), P = 0.002, I² = 79%, NNT 6] and PEG in the “low-residue diet” subgroup [MH RE, RD -0.17, IC (-0.27, 0.07), P = 0.0008, I² = 86%, NNT 6].

CONCLUSION

SPMC seems to be better than PEG for bowel preparation, with a similar bowel cleaning success rate, better tolerability and lower prevalence of adverse events.

Which Patient-Related Factors Determine Optimal Bowel Preparation?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Adequate bowel cleansing before colonoscopy is a simple concept but the high rate of inadequate or incomplete bowel cleanliness and its consequences have been the subject of many studies, guidelines, and meta-analysis. The complexity resides in all the factors surrounding preparation intake such as type and regimen of bowel preparation, diets, compliance, and also patient-related factors that all influence quality of the bowel preparation. The purpose of this review is to focus specifically on patient-related factors and their challenges. Patients with lower GI bleeding are excluded from this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient factors that may be associated with a poor bowel preparation were searched for in the literature. With regard to patient's characteristics, higher age, male gender, and socio-economic status (lower income, Medicaid, and lower education) were all associated with higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation. Comorbidities such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), in-patients, body mass index (BMI), cirrhosis, constipation, and neurological condition as well as some pharmacotherapy were also associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Studies identifying predictive patient factors as well as those studying these patients in particular showed variability in the strength of the patient factor associations. Patients taking tricyclic antidepressant, narcotics, and those with neurological conditions were identified to have a stronger association with worse bowel cleanliness. Those can be implemented with the current recommendations of split-dosing. Identifying individual factors that can impact the quality of bowel cleanliness can be challenging. Some have been well-studied in the literature such as age, in-patient status, or constipation and others such as male gender or higher BMI have required more studies to clearly conclude on any possible association. In many studies, simple recommendations like walking 30 min during the preparation, and additional instructions or support have also been added to instructions to improve motility and compliance.

The Clinical and Economic Effects of Targeted Bowel Preparation: Results of a Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy bowel preparation failure is common, costly, and clinically harmful. Prediction models can identify patients at high risk for preparation failure, but they are rarely used.

GOALS

To investigate the clinical and economic effects of using a more intensive preparation upfront (a "targeted" strategy) for patients identified as high risk for preparation failure.

STUDY

We developed a Markov decision analytic model to compare usual care with a targeted strategy. Usual care consisted of a 4 L preparation, followed by a 2-day preparation in the event of preparation failure. The targeted strategy consisted of a 4 L preparation for low-risk patients, and upfront 2 days preparation for high-risk patients. Base-case values were gathered from literature review. Under each strategy, we calculated days spent preparing for, or undergoing, colonoscopy (patient burden), and cost per patient (payer perspective). Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case, the targeted strategy resulted in a similar patient burden compared with usual care (2.56 vs. 2.51 d, respectively). However, it substantially reduced cost per patient ($1254 vs. $1343) by reducing the number of colonoscopies. In sensitivity analyses, the targeted strategy reduced cost across the entire plausible range of risk of preparation failure and prediction model sensitivity and specificity. The targeted strategy resulted in less patient burden than usual care when (1) preparation failure risk exceeded 20%; (2) prediction sensitivity exceeded 73%; or (3) prediction specificity exceeded 76%.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted bowel preparation is likely to reduce costs associated with repeat colonoscopy with minimal effect on patient burden.

Impact of diet restriction on bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Diet restriction is one of the difficult parts of bowel preparation for colonoscopy, and many patients do not follow instructions properly. Few studies have evaluated the impact of dietary restriction in real clinical setting. The aim of this study was to study the effect of diet control on bowel preparation with detailed investigation of unacceptable food list in order to reveal what kind of foods are most problematic in clinical practice.Prospective observational study was carried out at a university-affiliated hospital. Around 4 L polyethylene glycol solution was used for bowel preparation on the day of colonoscopy. Patients were allowed to have regular diet until lunch the day before colonoscopy and educated to control diet from 3 days before colonoscopy with information regarding an unacceptable foods list. Factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation were analyzed using univariate statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis.Of the 245 patients included in the study, 68 patients (27.8%) followed the diet instructions. Fiber-rich vegetables were the most commonly taken unacceptable foods (N = 143, 58.4%). Inadequate bowel preparation (fair and poor by Aronchick scale) was 47.3%. In multivariate analysis, diabetes [odds ratio (OR) 2.878, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.242-6.671], preparation to colonoscopy interval (OR 1.003, 95% CI 1.000-1.005) and consumption of foods disturbing bowel preparation (OR 2.142, 95% CI 1.108-4.140) were independent predictors of inadequate bowel preparation.We could identify substantially low compliance to diet instructions in real clinical practice. Consumption of any foods disturbing bowel preparation was significant factor predicting inadequate bowel preparation, even though we could not select specific food list compromising preparation significantly. Favorable bowel preparation was achieved in the subgroup compliant to diet restriction, suggesting that regular diet avoiding specific kinds of foods can be possible option for diet restriction before colonoscopy.

Phosphate nephropathy: an avoidable complication of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

It is known that oral sodium phosphate, used as bowel preparation for colonoscopy, can cause acute phosphate nephropathy, a potentially severe and irreversible form of acute kidney injury. Due to these safety concerns, guidelines have advised against the routine use of this agent for a decade. We present a case report and biopsy series that demonstrate that oral sodium phosphate is still being used and that cases of APN are still occurring, in Australia.

Validation of same-day bowel preparation regimen using 4L polyethylene glycol: Comparison of morning and afternoon colonoscopy

A split-dose regimen is the recommended method of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, for colonoscopy performed in the afternoon, same-day preparation is recommended rather than a split-dose regimen. No study has compared the efficacy of same-day bowel-cleansing for morning colonoscopy (MC) and afternoon colonoscopy (AC). The aims of this study were to evaluate the bowel-cleansing efficacy, adverse events, and patient tolerability of same-day bowel preparation for colonoscopy using 4L polyethylene glycol (PEG).The medical records of consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at our healthcare center over 3 months were retrospectively reviewed. Colonoscopy was performed between 10:00 and 16:00. Study subjects were assigned to the MC or AC group according to their colonoscopy start time (MC group, before 12:00; AC group, after 12:00). Study subjects were instructed to drink 500-mL PEG every 15 minutes. In the MC group, bowel cleansing was started at 05:00 and finished at 07:00. For the AC group, 2L PEG was consumed from 07:00, and the remaining 2L PEG was started 3 hours before colonoscopy. The composite safety profile included vital signs, laboratory test results, and questionnaire findings. Laboratory testing of subjects and completion of the questionnaire were performed before colonoscopy. The questionnaire asked about adverse events and tolerability of the bowel cleansing regimen. Bowel-cleansing efficacy was assessed using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS). Bowel-cleansing efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile were compared between the 2 groups.Two hundred and ninety-one subjects were included (MC group, 169; AC group, 122).The BBPS did not differ between the 2 groups (7.3 ± 0.8 vs. 7.3 ± 0.8, P = .68). There were no instances of electrolyte imbalance or hemodynamic instability in either group. The tolerability of the bowel-cleansing regimen did not differ between the 2 groups (P = .59).The bowel-cleansing efficacy, safety profile, and patient tolerability of MC and AC were comparable. A same-day dose of 4L PEG is a feasible bowel preparation method.

An Adjusted Level of Adenoma Detection Rate is Necessary for Adults Below 50 Years Old

BACKGROUND

Although adenoma prevalence is lower in younger people compared with screening-aged adults 50 years old and above, there is no adjustment recommendation for the target adenoma detection rate (ADR) in young people. Herein, we estimated a different target ADR for adults below 50 years old based on screening colonoscopy findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Asymptomatic, average-risk adults below 50 years old who underwent screening colonoscopy were enrolled at 12 endoscopy centers in Korea between February 2006 and March 2012. Screening colonoscopies were stratified into low or high ADR groups with ADR levels of 20% and 25%, respectively.

RESULTS

The ADRs from 12 endoscopy centers ranged from 12.1% to 43.8% (median ADR, 24.1%) based on 5272 young adults receiving screening colonoscopies. Using 20% as an ADR level, the risks for metachronous adenoma and advanced adenoma were significantly higher in the low ADR group than the high ADR group (35.4% vs. 25.7%, P<0.001; 8.3% vs. 3.7%, P=0.001, respectively). However, using ADR level of 25%, the risk for metachronous neoplasia was similar in the high and low ADR groups in young adults according to screening colonoscopy. In subgroup analysis, similar findings were found in males, but not in females.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal target ADR may be different between younger and older populations, and the adoption of a 20% target ADR could be used as a performance indicator for young populations.

Real-world comparison of the effectiveness and safety of different bowel preparation agents

Background and aims

Proper bowel cleansing is necessary prior to colonoscopy, but poor tolerability to bowel preparation agents may increase the odds of poor cleansing and incomplete screenings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and safety of bowel preparation agents.

Methods

Claims data were extracted for individuals who had a screening colonoscopy from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2015, were ≥18 years of age, and who could be observed ≥6 months before and ≥3 months after the screening. Data were stratified by agent class, including over-the-counter (OTC), low-volume (LV), and high-volume (HV) agents. Rates of incomplete screenings, repeat screenings, and hospitalizations were reported. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to compare outcomes for sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (P/MC) vs other agents.

Results

Of 2.8 million individuals, 71.5% were average risk and 28.5% were high risk for colorectal cancer. Rates of use were 2.8% for P/MC, 30.1% for other LV agents, 9.4% for HV agents, and 56.6% for OTC agents. All individuals who used P/MC had significantly lower odds of incomplete screenings compared to those who used other LV agents or HV agents (P<0.05). In average-risk patients, rates of 30- and 90-day repeat screenings were highest for the P/MC group (16.7% and 23.0%, respectively) compared to other agents. Across all patient analysis groups, the rates of hospitalizations for hyponatremia or dehydration were much higher for those who used an OTC bowel preparation agent compared to those who used LV or HV agents, or P/MC.

Conclusion

P/MC was associated with lower rates of incomplete colonoscopy and higher rates of repeat screenings, suggesting it was better tolerated than other agents. OTC agents were associated with higher rates of hospitalizations.

Polyethylene glycol plus bisacodyl: A safe, cheap, and effective regimen for colonoscopy in the South Asian patients

Background and Aim

Data regarding the comparison of colonoscopic preparation regimens are still variable. We aimed to assess the adequacy and tolerability of two bowel preparation regimens for afternoon colonoscopy.

Methods

In a randomized, investigator‐blinded trial, two preparation regimens [4‐L split‐dose polyethylene glycol‐electrolytes (PEG‐ELS) and 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl) were compared in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and adverse effects.

Results

The mean (±SD) age (years) of the 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS group (N = 147) and the 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl (N = 155) were 44.09 (±15.62) (M:F : 2:1) and 44.12 years (±15.61) (M:F : 1.7:1), respectively. Percentage of patients with excellent and good preparation was higher in the 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS regimen compared with the 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl regimen (22.44 vs 17.41 and 44.21% vs 36.12%). Percentage of patients with fair and poor preparation was lower in 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS regimen compared with the 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl regimen (21.08% vs 27.74% and 12.24% vs 18.70%). In comparison with the 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl group, the incidences of abdominal pain (11% vs 15%), bloating (9% vs 12.24%), nausea/vomiting (8.38% vs 9.52%), and sleep disturbance (11% vs 12%) were slightly more common in the 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two regimens with regard to bowel cleansing efficacy and adverse events.

Conclusions

The 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl (10 mg) preparation is as efficacious as the 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS regimen for afternoon colonoscopy. Optimal preparation for colonoscopy can be achieved with the 2‐L PEG‐ELS plus bisacodyl regimen with slightly fewer adverse events and lower cost compared to the 4‐L split‐dose PEG‐ELS regimen.

Efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowel preparation for colonoscopy (Clensia): a multicenter randomized observer-blind clinical trial vs. a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid (PEG-ASC)

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Quality of inspection during colonoscopy is strictly related to the level of cleansing. High-volume (PEG-based) solutions are highly effective and safe, but their high volume affects tolerability and compliance. The aim of this study was to compare a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone solution (PMF 104,Clensia) with a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid solution (PEG-ASC; Moviprep).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This was a multicenter, randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial, where patients were randomized between PMF 104 and PEG-ASC. In both groups, patients were instructed to take a full-dose regimen the evening before if colonoscopy was scheduled before 11 am to 12 pm, or to take a split regimen if colonoscopy was scheduled after 11 am to 12 pm. The primary end-point was an equivalence between PMF104 and PEG-ASC in the rate of adequate level of cleansing (Ottawa scale ≤ 6), with safety, mucosal visibility, tolerability, acceptance and compliance being also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 403 enrolled, 367 patients (Mean age [SD]: 55.6 (14.4) years; male:166 [45.2 %]) were included in the per protocol (PP) analysis: 184 being randomized in the PMF 104 group and 183 in the PEG-ASC group. Successful bowel cleansing was 78.3 % and 74.3 % in PMF104 and in PEG-ASC, respectively ( P  = 0.37). Both preparations were equally safe (mild adverse events were observed in 9.2 % and 9.3 % of patients in the PMF104 and in the PEG-ASC group, respectively) and acceptable (no or mild distress during the intake in 81.4 % and 80.8 % in the PMF104 in the PEG-ASC, respectively [ P  = 0.74]).

CONCLUSION

The new low-volume product Clensia is equivalent to the reference low-volume PEG-ASC in terms of bowel cleansing, safety and acceptance.

Mst1 regulates colorectal cancer stress response via inhibiting Bnip3-related mitophagy by activation of JNK/p53 pathway

The Hippo-Mst1 pathway is associated with tumor development and progression. However, little evidence is available for its role in colorectal cancer (CRC) stress response via mitochondrial homeostasis. In this study, we conducted gain-of function assay about Mst1 in CRC via adenovirus transfection. Then, cellular viability and apoptosis were measured via MTT, TUNEL assay, and typan blue staining. Mitochondrial function was detected via JC1 staining, mPTP opening assay, and immunofluorescence of cyt-c. Mitophagy was observed via western blots and immunofluorescence. Cell migration and proliferation were evaluated via Transwell and BrdU assay. Western blots were used to analyze the signaling pathways with JNK inhibitors or p53 siRNA. We found that Mst1 was down-regulated in CRC. Overexpression of Mst1 induced CRC apoptosis and impaired cell proliferation and migration. Functional studies have illustrated that recovery of Mst1 could activate JNK pathway which upregulated the p53 expression. The latter repressed Bnip3 transcription and activity, leading to the mitophagy arrest. The defective mitophagy impaired mitochondrial homeostasis, evoked cellular oxidative stress, and initiated the mitochondrial apoptosis. Meanwhile, bad-structured mitophagy also hindered the cancer proliferation via CyclinD/E. Moreover, Mst1-suppressed mitophagy was associated with CRC migration inhibition via regulation of CXCR4/7 expression. Collectively, our data described the comprehensive role of Mst1 in colorectal cancer stress response involving apoptosis, mobilization, and growth via handling mitophagy by JNK/p53/Bnip3 pathways.

Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to investigate factors contributing to poor bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy procedures. We used a reproducible search strategy to identify studies, searching 10 medical databases, including PubMed, Ovid, Medline, and Cochrane Library Database for reports published between 2000 and 2016. Fully published studies, evaluating risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation, were included. Two reviewers independently scored the identified studies for methodology and abstracted pertinent data. Pooling was conducted with both fixed-effects and random-effects models; results were presented from the random effects model when heterogeneity was significant. Odds ratios (OR) estimates with 95% confidence interval were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed by I statistics. Twenty-four studies with a total of 49 868 patients met the inclusion criteria. Age (OR: -1.20), male sex (OR: 0.85), inpatient status (OR: 0.57), diabetes mellitus (OR: 0.58), hypertension (OR: 0.58), cirrhosis (OR: 0.49), narcotic use (OR: 0.59), constipation (OR: 0.61), stroke (OR; 0.51), and tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) use (0.51), were associated with inadequate bowel preparation. In our sensitivity analysis comparing Western and Asian countries, we found that diabetes, cirrhosis, male sex, history of stroke and TCA use were stronger risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in Western countries than in Asian countries. We also found that history of stroke, TCA use, and race were risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in patients receiving conventional bowel preparation compared with those receiving split-dose bowel preparation. Multiple risk factors affect the quality of bowel preparation and specific risk factors can be intervened upon, in different populations, to optimize preparation.

Bowel preparation quality scales for colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in the United States. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy CRC screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, unsuccessful screens, and an increased likelihood of repeat procedure. In addition, standardized criteria and assessment scales for bowel preparation quality are lacking. While several bowel preparation quality scales are referred to in the literature, these differ greatly in grading methodology and categorization criteria. Published reliability and validity data are available for five bowel preparation quality assessment scales, which vary in several key attributes. However, clinicians and researchers continue to use a variety of bowel preparation quality measures, including nonvalidated scales, leading to potential confusion and difficulty when comparing quality results among clinicians and across clinical trials. Optimal clinical criteria for bowel preparation quality remain controversial. The use of validated bowel preparation quality scales with stringent but simple scoring criteria would help clarify clinical trial data as well as the performance of colonoscopy in clinical practice related to quality measurements.

Bowel preparation quality scales for colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Colonoscopy is widely preferred for CRC screening and is the most commonly used method in the United States. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy CRC screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, unsuccessful screens, and an increased likelihood of repeat procedure. In addition, standardized criteria and assessment scales for bowel preparation quality are lacking. While several bowel preparation quality scales are referred to in the literature, these differ greatly in grading methodology and categorization criteria. Published reliability and validity data are available for five bowel preparation quality assessment scales, which vary in several key attributes. However, clinicians and researchers continue to use a variety of bowel preparation quality measures, including nonvalidated scales, leading to potential confusion and difficulty when comparing quality results among clinicians and across clinical trials. Optimal clinical criteria for bowel preparation quality remain controversial. The use of validated bowel preparation quality scales with stringent but simple scoring criteria would help clarify clinical trial data as well as the performance of colonoscopy in clinical practice related to quality measurements.

Comparison of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale with an Auditable Application of the US Multi-Society Task Force Guidelines

Background

Existing bowel preparation scales (BPS) only modestly predict interval to next colonoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) recommends repeating colonoscopies within the year if the preparation does not allow detection of polyps over 5 mm.

Aim

This study aims to assess reliability and validity of an auditable application of the MSTF compared with the Boston BPS (BBPS).

Methods

We compared an auditable application of MSTF guidelines termed the Montreal BPS (MBPS) with the BBPS using a total cut-off score ≥6 with each segment score ≥2 (BBPS2-6). In sensitivity analyses, we applied the MBPS using a cut-off of 3 mm rather than 5 mm and also assessed the BBPS using an adequacy threshold of total score ≥5 (BBPS5). Videos of 83 colonoscopies (eight for intra-rater agreements) were independently evaluated by nine physicians. Weighted kappas quantified intra- and inter-rater agreements. Associations between scores and clinical outcomes were assessed.

Results

The BBPS2-6 and 5 mm MBPS showed moderate to substantial intra-rater agreements (κ=0.44 to 0.63 and κ=0.50 to 0.53, respectively); inter-rater agreements were only fair to moderate and slight to moderate (κ=0.25 to 0.48 and κ=0.19 to 0.50, respectively). Similar results were noted using alternate thresholds of BBPS5 and 3 mm MBPS. No significant associations were found between scores and clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

For all scales, intra-rater kappas were superior to inter-rater values, the latter reflecting at best moderate agreement. This modest performance may reflect the dichotomized interpretation of the scales (adequate versus inadequate), differing from previous publications assessing scores as continuous variables. Further studies are required to optimally interpret bowel preparation scales with regard to interval to next colonoscopy.

Comparative safety of bowel cleansers: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The US Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn the bowel cleansing kit HalfLytely (PEG 3500) with 10 mg bisacodyl tablets due to an increased risk of ischaemic colitis compared with the same kit with only 5 mg bisacodyl. This is of interest in Canada given that the bowel cleansing kit Bi-Peglyte (PEG 3500) with 15 mg bisacodyl is currently approved for use. The objective is to assess the comparative safety of various bowel cleansers with or without bisacodyl, with a primary interest inpolyethylene glycol (PEG)-based and sodium-picosulfate-based products.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Given the existing volume of the literature, the review will be conducted in two stages. Stage 1 will consist of a scoping exercise by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library (up to 21 November 2017) to identify randomised controlled trials, quasirandomised studies and non-randomised studies in which any bowel cleanser regimens were compared among persons undergoing colonoscopy. The outcomes will be mapped to establish a listing of the studies and their comparisons and outcomes currently available in the literature. From this, a data synthesis plan will be determined. In stage 2, a systematic review with meta-analyses will be pursued, focused on the bowel cleanser comparisons and outcomes of interest identified in stage 1. Two reviewers will screen, extract and quality assess the articles. Outcomes of interest include ischaemic colitis, electrolyte imbalances and their consequences, seizures, bowel perforation and patient tolerability. If sufficient data exist and studies are of sufficient homogeneity, network meta-analyses (NMAs) will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was not necessary due to study design. Updating the safety profile of bowel cleansers among the generally healthy population undergoing colonoscopy is pertinent given recent approval changes. This will be the first NMA within this population. Policy considerations may be reconsidered to minimise risk during bowel cleanser use.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018084720.

Temporal trends in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates in 50- to 74-year-old persons: a population-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal cancers (CRCs) diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after colonoscopy, termed postcolonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs), arise primarily due to missed or inadequately treated neoplasms during colonoscopy. Introduction of multiple quality indicators and technological advances to colonoscopy practice should have reduced the PCCRC rate over time. We assessed temporal trends in the population rate of PCCRC as a measure of changing colonoscopy quality.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of persons aged 50 to 74 years without advanced risk factors for CRC who underwent complete colonoscopy in Ontario, Canada between 1996 and 2010. We defined the PCCRC rate as the proportion of individuals diagnosed with CRC within 36 months of colonoscopy that had PCCRC. We compared age-adjusted and sex-adjusted rates of PCCRC over time based on 3 periods (1996-2001, 2001-2006 and 2006-2010) and assessed the independent association between time period and PCCRC risk through multivariable regression, with respect to all PCCRCs, proximal PCCRC and distal PCCRC.

RESULTS

There was a marked increase in colonoscopy volumes over the study period, particularly in younger age groups and non-hospital settings. Among 1,093,658 eligible persons the PCCRC rate remained stable at approximately 8% over the 15-year study period. The adjusted odds of PCCRC, distal PCCRC and proximal PCCRC, comparing the 2006 to 2010 period with the 1996 to 2001 period, were 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-1.31), 1.11 (95% CI, 0.91-1.34), and 1.14 (95% CI, 0.94-1.38), respectively. Temporal trends in PCCRC risk did not differ by endoscopist specialty or institutional setting after covariate adjustment.

CONCLUSION

The PCCRC rate in Ontario has remained consistently high over time. Widespread initiatives are needed to improve colonoscopy quality.

Advances in CRC Prevention: Screening and Surveillance

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most commonly diagnosed cancers and causes of death from cancer across the world. CRC can, however, be detected in asymptomatic patients at a curable stage, and several studies have shown lower mortality among patients who undergo screening compared with those who do not. Using colonoscopy in CRC screening also results in the detection of precancerous polyps that can be directly removed during the procedure, thereby reducing the incidence of cancer. In the past decade, convincing evidence has appeared that the effectiveness of colonoscopy as CRC prevention tool is associated with the quality of the procedure. This review aims to provide an up-to-date overview of recent efforts to improve colonoscopy effectiveness by enhancing detection and improving the completeness and safety of resection of colorectal lesions.

Same-day Versus Split-dose Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Split-dose regimens (SpDs) were recommended as a first choice for bowel preparation, whereas same-day regimens (SaDs) were recommended as an alternative; however, randomized trials compared them with mixed results. The meta-analysis was aimed at clarifying efficacy level between the 2 regimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify randomized trials published from 1990 to 2016, comparing SaDs to SpDs in adults. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for preparation quality, cecal intubation rate (CIR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), and any other adverse effects.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included. The proportion of individuals receiving SaDs and SpDs with adequate preparation in the pooled analysis were 79.4% and 81.7%, respectively, with no significant difference [OR=0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-1.36] in 11 trials. Subgroup analysis revealed that the odds of adequate preparation for SaDs with bisacodyl were 2.45 times that for SpDs without bisacodyl (95% CI, 1.45-4.51, in favor of SaDs with bisacodyl). Subjects received SaDs experienced better sleep.

CONCLUSIONS

SaDs were comparable with SpDs in terms of bowel cleanliness, CIR, and ADR, and could also outperform SpDs in preparation quality with bisacodyl. SaDs also offered better sleep the previous night than SpDs did, which suggests that SaDs might serve as a superior alternative to SpDs. The heterogenous regimens and measurements likely account for the low rates of optimal bowl preparations in both arms. Further studies are needed to validate these results and determine the optimal purgatives and dosages.

Split- versus single-dose preparation tolerability in a multiethnic population: decreased side effects but greater social barriers

BACKGROUND

This study was performed to compare patient-reported tolerability and its barriers in single- vs. split-dose 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation for colonoscopy in a large multiethnic, safety-net patient population.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, dual-center study using a multi-language survey was used to collect patient-reported demographic, medical, socioeconomic, and tolerability data from patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify demographic and clinical factors significantly associated with patient-reported bowel preparation tolerability.

RESULTS

A total of 1023 complete surveys were included, of which 342 (33.4%) completed single-dose and 681 (66.6%) split-dose bowel preparation. Thirty-nine percent of the patients were Hispanic, 50% had Medicaid or no insurance, and 34% had limited English proficiency. Patients who underwent split-dose preparation were significantly more likely to report a tolerable preparation, with less severe symptoms, than were patients who underwent single-dose preparation. Multiple logistic regression revealed that male sex and instructions in the preferred language were associated with tolerability of the single-dose preparation, while male sex and concerns about medications were associated with tolerability of the split-dose preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large multiethnic safety-net population, split-dose bowel preparation was significantly more tolerable and associated with less severe gastrointestinal symptoms than single-dose preparation. The tolerability of split-dose bowel preparation was associated with social barriers, including concerns about interfering with other medications.

Comparative efficacy of combination of 1 L polyethylene glycol, castor oil and ascorbic acid versus 2 L polyethylene glycol plus castor oil versus 3 L polyethylene glycol for colon cleansing before colonoscopy: Study protocol of a randomized, double-blind, single-center study

Colonoscopy has been regarded as an important method of early diagnosing and treating gastrointestinal lesions; however adequate bowel preparation is critical one of many factors needed for successful colonoscopy. Although several modified or novel regimes have been developed, desired quality of bowel preparation has not yet been generated. Scattered evidences revealed that castor oil may have potential of effectively cleansing colon. It is noted that, however, prospective trial of exploring the value of castor oil in preparing bowel before colonoscopy is lacking. The aims of this study are to test the hypotheses that low dose castor oil (30 mL) may enhance potential of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and combination of low castor oil and ascorbic acid may halve the volume of PEG.This is a randomized, double-blind (endoscopist and assessor), single center trial with three-arm design. We will randomly assign 282 adult patients (≥18 years but < 75 years), who are scheduled to undergo colonoscopy, to receive either 3 L PEG alone, 2 L PEG plus 30 mL castor oil or combination of 1 L PEG, 30 mL castor oil and 5 g ascorbic acid. The bowel preparation quality based on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) is the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes include the first defecation time, total number of defecation, time of cecal intubation, detection rate of polyp and adenoma, willing to repeat the same regime, tolerance to regime, and adverse events.The study protocol has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committees of Chongqing University Cancer Hospital & Chongqing Cancer Institute & Chongqing Cancer Hospital & Chongqing Cancer Center (2017[107]). The results from this trial will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and will be presented at national and international conferences.

Same-Day Single Dose of 2 Liter Polyethylene Glycol is Not Inferior to The Standard Bowel Preparation Regimen in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Split dose of 4 l polyethylene glycol (PEG) is currently the standard regimen for bowel preparation (BP). However, it may be unnecessary for patients without high risks (e.g., old age, constipation, and diabetes, and so on) for inadequate BP. The study aimed to compare the efficacy of bowel cleansing between low-risk patients receiving same-day, single dose of low-volume (SSL) PEG vs. standard regimen.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, non-inferiority study enrolled low-risk patients in three centers. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to the SSL or standard group. The primary outcome was adequate BP, defined by Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) ≥6 and each segmental score ≥2. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, cecal intubation rate, and patient willingness to repeat BP, and so on.

RESULTS

Among 2,532 patients eligible for the study, 940 (37.1%) were at low risk and 792 (31.3%) at high risk for inadequate BP. The low-risk patients were randomly allocated to the SSL (n=470) or standard group (n=470). The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that adequate BP was achieved in 88.1% in the SSL group and 87.0% in the standard group (relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-1.63, P=0.621). The overall BBPS was 7.3±1.2 and 7.3±1.3, respectively (P=0.948). No significant differences were found between the two groups with regards to the right, transverse, and left-segmental colon BBPS (all P>0.05). However, in terms of adverse events, patients in the SSL group reported less nausea (19.6% vs. 29.9%), vomiting (5.3% vs. 11.4%), and abdominal discomfort (2.2% vs. 6.0%) compared with those in the standard group. More patients in the SSL group were willing to repeat BP (94.0% vs. 89.5%, P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

For low-risk patients, the SSL regimen was not inferior to the split dose of 4 l PEG for adequacy of BP. Single dose of low-volume regimen had significantly fewer adverse events. This simplified regimen may be preferable in the "easy-to prepare" population.