A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES)

SPLIT-DOSE BOWEL PREPARATION IS SUPERIOR TO STRAIGHT-DOSE IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS UNDERGOING INPATIENT COLONOSCOPY

BACKGROUND

There is a two-fold higher rate of failed colonoscopy secondary to inadequate bowel preparation among hospitalized versus ambulatory patients. Split-dose bowel preparation is widely used in the outpatient setting but has not been generally adapted for use among the inpatient population.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of split versus single dose polyethylene glycol bowel (PEG) preparation for inpatient colonoscopies and determine additional procedural and patient characteristics that drive inpatient colonoscopy quality.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed on 189 patients who underwent inpatient colonoscopy and received 4 liters PEG as either split- or straight-dose during a 6-month period in 2017 at an academic medical center. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), Aronchick Score, and reported adequacy of preparation.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation was reported as adequate in 89% of the split-dose group versus 66% in the straight-dose group (P=0.0003). Inadequate bowel preparations were documented in 34.2% of the single-dose group and 10.7% of the split-dose group (P<0.001). Only 40% of patients received split-dose PEG. Mean BBPS was significantly lower in the straight-dose group (Total: 6.32 vs 7.73, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Split-dose bowel preparation is superior to straight-dose preparation across reportable quality metrics for non-screening colonoscopies and was readily performed in the inpatient setting. Interventions should be targeted at shifting the culture of gastroenterologist prescribing practices towards use of split-dose bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Two Different Low-Volume Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Electrolytes Solution Bowel Preparation for Morning Colonoscopy

METHODS

A total of 120 patients were randomized to receive either the control group (n = 64) or the experimental group (n = 65). Patients in the control group adopted the low-volume split-dose regimen one, and patients in the experimental group adopted the low-volume split-dose regimen two. Those randomized to regimen one were instructed to take 0.75 L PEG two hours after dinner the day before the colonoscopy and 1.5 L PEG 4 hours before the colonoscopy. Patients assigned to regimen two were invited to consume 1.5 L PEG two hours after dinner the day before the colonoscopy and 0.75 L PEG 4 hours before the colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation, rated according to a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), represented the primary outcome measure. Tolerability, satisfaction, and lesions detection rated were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the transverse colon and right colon scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). The low-volume split-dose regimen two showed a higher success rate for cleansing of the right colon and overall colon (P < 0.05). For the comparison of the patients' bowel tolerance, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding thirst, abdominal pain or abdominal discomfort, abdominal distension, dizziness or headache, anal discomfort, and sleep disturbance (P > 0.05). However, regimen two had significantly less nausea, vomiting, and fatigue than regimen one (24.62% vs. 42.19%, P=0.034; 10.77% vs. 25.00%, P=0.035; 6.15% vs. 21.88%, P=0.010, respectively). Patient-reported satisfaction and willingness to repeat the bowel preparation were significantly higher for low-volume split-dose regimen two than for low-volume split-dose regimen one (P=0.011; P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

In early morning colonoscopies, the bowel-cleansing efficacy and patient tolerability of low-volume split-dose regimen two were superior to low-volume split-dose regimen one.

Evaluating patient acceptability and bowel preparation efficacy of sodium picosulfate‐magnesium citrate for colonoscopy

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Increased Driving Distance to Screening Colonoscopy Negatively Affects Bowel Preparation Quality: an Observational Study

BACKGROUND

To prepare for colonoscopy, patients must consume a bowel purgative and travel from their home to the site of their procedure. The timing of bowel purgative ingestion predicts bowel preparation quality. Currently, it is not known if driving distance impacts bowel preparation quality or adenoma detection.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the effect of driving distance on bowel preparation and adenoma detection.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of outpatient screening colonoscopy procedures that were completed at an academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 5089 patients who completed screening colonoscopy across 3 procedure units were analyzed.

MAIN MEASURES

Description of bowel preparation was dichotomized to either adequate or inadequate. Patient residential addresses were converted into geographic coordinates for geospatial analysis of driving distance to their colonoscopy site.

KEY RESULTS

Median driving distance was 13.1 miles. Eighty-nine percent of patients had an adequate bowel preparation. The rate of adenoma detection was 37%. On multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, race, insurance, endoscopist, and site, increasing driving distance (10-mile increments) was negatively associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.97), while adenoma detection was positively associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 1.53; 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.88) but not with driving distance (odds ratio = 1.02; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.06). Driving distances of 30 miles or less were associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 1.37; 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing driving distance to screening colonoscopy was negatively associated with adequate bowel preparation but not adenoma detection. Among an academic medical center population, the likelihood of adequate bowel preparation was highest in patients traveling 30 miles or less to their screening colonoscopy. Patient driving distance to colonoscopy is an important consideration in optimizing screening colonoscopy quality.

Efficacy of low residue enteral formula versus clear liquid diet during bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomised controlled pilot trial

Objectives Conventional bowel preparation for colonoscopy confines patient to clear liquid diet the day before and such non-nutritive dietary regimen often caused discomfort and hunger. The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of feeding patient with low-residue, lactose-free semi-elemental enteral formula (PEPTAMEN®) compare to conventional clear liquid diet during bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Methods This was a randomised, endoscopist-blinded study. Patients were randomised into two groups, those receiving oral PEPTAMEN® and mechanical bowel preparation (A) and those receiving clear liquid while undergoing mechanical bowel preparation (B). Documentation was made with regard to the type of bowel cleansing agents used, completeness of the colonoscopy, cleanliness quality score, and hunger score.

Results A total of 97 patients were included in the study, A = 48 and B = 49. Eight patients, who were not compliant to the bowel-cleansing agent or had an incomplete colonoscopic examination, were excluded from the study. In terms of the overall cleanliness score, no statistical significant difference was seen (p = 0.25) between the two groups, A (fair or poor 37.5%, good or excellent 62.5%) and B (fair or poor 49%, good or excellent 51%) whereas the hunger score showed a significant difference (p = 0.016), A (no hunger 41.7%, slight hunger 12.5%, hungry 12.5%) and B (no hunger 24.5%, slight hunger 38.8%, hungry 36.7%).

Conclusions These data suggest that the addition of oral PEPTAMEN® as part of the bowel preparation regimen did not significantly alter the luminal cleanliness score during colonoscopy while alleviating hunger.

Polyethylene glycol versus split high-dose senna for bowel preparation: A comparative prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the quality and tolerability of bowel preparation using split high-doses of sennosides versus split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG).

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, and endoscopist-blinded study, 474 outpatients were included and randomly assigned to two groups: Group 1 was comprised of 237 patients receiving split high-dose (1000 mg) sennoside solutions, and group 2 included 237 patients receiving 4 L of PEG. The efficacy of the preparations was evaluated on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and compliance and adverse effects were recorded.

RESULTS

The quality of colon cleansing and the ease of bowel preparation were significantly better in the senna group; the mean of total BBPS scores was 7.35 in the senna group and 6.57 in the PEG group, cleansing was adequate (BBPS score ≥ 6) in 89.9% of patients taking senna, and 73.8% in the PEG group (P = 0.001). The rates of vomiting in the senna and PEG groups were 12.7% and 29.5%, nausea rates were 28.7% and 43.9%, and abdominal pain rates were 70.9% and 43%, respectively (P < 0.001). Cecal intubation rates in the senna and PEG groups were 95.4% and 86.1% (P = 0.001), and the cecal intubation times were 6.73 ± 2.84 and 5.34 ± 5.98 min, respectively (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Split high-dose senna is more effective than split-dose PEG in terms of bowel preparation quality and patient compliance. The patients who received senna had significantly less vomiting and nausea but significantly more abdominal pain. Thus, senna may be used as an alternative to PEG for bowel preparation.

Improving the Quality of Bowel Preparation: Rewarding Patients for Success or Intensive Patient Education?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The quality of the bowel preparation is a critical parameter for the outcome of colonoscopies. It is well established that the bowel preparation modality (e.g., split or larger volume preparation) significantly improves the quality of the bowel preparation. Patient compliance is another important factor impacting on the quality of bowel preparations that receives relatively little research attention. We aimed to explore if intensified education or a lottery ticket as reward for good bowel preparation could improve outcomes.

METHODS

After informed consent, all patients received a standardized printed information booklet. In a randomized fashion, patients were offered (a) a lottery scratchy ticket with an opportunity to win $25,000 as "reward" for good bowel preparation, (b) an education session delivered over the phone by a trained nurse, or (c) no additional measure.

RESULTS

Overall, the quality of the bowel preparation was rated good or very good in 69.1% (95% CI 61.7-75.7%) of patients. Reward intervention did not influence the quality of bowel preparation (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.09-1.91, p = 0.260); however, bowel preparation quality decreased in patients randomized to receive the additional education (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96, p = 0.042). Neither intervention significantly impacted on polyp detection rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrasting general beliefs, additional interventions (e.g., incentives or phone consultation) did not improve the quality of the bowel preparation. The unexpected result shows that utilizing extra resources must be balanced against real-world outcomes and may not always provide the expected result.

Factors affecting bowel preparation adequacy and procedural time

Background and Aim

Poor bowel preparation results in difficult colonoscopies, missed lesions, and repeat procedures. Identifying patient risk factors for poor bowel preparation, such as prolonged runway time and prolonged cecal intubation, will aid in interventions prior to a procedure.

Methods

This was a retrospective, single‐center analysis of 3 295 colonoscopies performed between May 2012 and November 2014. Indications for colonoscopy included gastrointestinal bleed and anemia, change in bowel habits, for screening, and others (including planning re‐anastomoses, abdominal distension, family history and angioectasias). Data were collected from medical charts and endoscopy reports. Comparisons between patient factors and runway time were made with adequacy of bowel preparation as the primary outcomes.

Results

Male and diabetic patients had statistically higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation and prolonged cecal intubation times. A previous history of abdominal surgery also demonstrated prolonged cecal intubation. A runway time of ≤7.63 h was associated with higher rates of adequate bowel preparation by multivariate analysis. The optimal time frame is 3–6 h for the highest success rates.

Conclusion

Patient risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or prolonged cecal intubation should signal clinicians to intervene prior to colonoscopy. A runway time between 3 and 6 h is optimal for adequate bowel preparation. This may involve further patient education, along with work flow optimization, to facilitate ideal runway times. Future studies should explore how to avoid repeat endoscopies using protocols enforcing this timeframe.

Poor Health Literacy and Medication Burden Are Significant Predictors for Inadequate Bowel Preparation in an Urban Tertiary Care Setting

GOALS

The goal of this study was to identify factors impacting the quality of bowel preparation in an urban tertiary care setting.

BACKGROUND

Inadequate bowel preparation is encountered in 17% to 32% of colonoscopies performed in the United States. Suboptimal colonic visualization reduces the yield of screening colonoscopies and increases healthcare costs because of longer procedure times and aborted procedures.

STUDY

We performed a cross-sectional survey in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy within the Johns Hopkins Health System. A Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) score of <5 was considered inadequate. Fisher's exact, χ tests and univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression were performed to assess the strength of the association for selected factors with a BBPS<5.

RESULTS

In total, 467 patients (76.3% response rate) completed the survey between August 2017 and October 2017. The median BBPS score was 7, and 81.4% of patients had an adequate bowel preparation (BBPS≥5). There was significant association between bowel preparation adequacy and level of education, health literacy, functional status, income, and medication burden. When adjusted for other factors, poor confidence in filling forms (OR, 24.1; P<0.001), multiple daily prescription medications (OR, 12.49; P=0.02) and poor functional status (OR, 2.82; P=0.03) had the highest odds of predicting inadequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate bowel preparation is a significant problem accounting for reduced yield of screening and increased health care costs. Poor health literacy, functional status, and number of daily medications are significant factors predicting inadequate bowel preparation in the tertiary care setting.

Efficacy of three intestinal preparation methods for colonoscopy

AIM

To compare the advantages and disadvantages of three intestinal preparation methods for colonoscopy to identify the safest, simplest and fastest intestinal preparation method.

METHODS

A total of 105 patients undergoing colonoscopy at Department of Anorectal Surgery, Yuyao People's Hospita between August 2017 and January 2018 were randomly divided into groups A, B and C, which were orally administrated with sodium phosphate, compound polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder, and compound polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder + magnesium sulphate, respectively. Adverse reactions of the three intestinal cleansers were evaluated using questionnaires. Intestinal cleansing effect and intestinal bubble volume were evaluated by endoscopic surgeons.

RESULTS

Intestinal cleansing effect in groups A and C was superior to that of group B (P < 0.05). Adverse reactions in the group A were obviously less than those in group C (P < 0.05), although there was no statistically significant difference between group A and group B or between group B and group C (P > 0.05). Intestinal bubble volume presented no statistically significant difference among groups A, B and C (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intestinal cleansing effect of sodium phosphate and compound polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder + magnesium sulphate is superior to compound polyethylene glycol electrolytes powder. Moreover, sodium phosphate is characterized by low dose and mild intestinal adverse reactions; therefore, it should be the first choice in clinical practice.

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.

The Effectiveness of Personalized Bowel Preparation Using a Smartphone Camera Application: A Randomized Pilot Study

Background

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a smartphone application that analyzes and judges the optimal dosage of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation.

Methods

Patients were assigned to use the smartphone camera application (app group) or written instructions (non-app group). The smartphone camera application was programmed to analyze the bowel preparation quality and automatically determine the dosage of PEG from an analysis of stool images. In contrast, the non-app group consumed PEG solution according to the manual.

Results

The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation based on blinded ratings using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale (OBPS). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean OBPS scores between the two groups (P = 0.950). However, the app group consumed a lower dose of PEG than the non-app group (mean dosage (mL): 3713.2 ± 405.8 versus 3979.2 ± 102.06, P = 0.001). The app group (5-point Likert scale; mean score 4.37 ± 0.895) had high acceptance of the application.

Conclusions

Although the app group consumed a lower PEG dose, the bowel preparation quality was similar in the two groups. Moreover, use of the smartphone camera application enhanced compliance with the bowel preparation.

A Modified Bowel Preparation Regimen for Colonoscopy Providing the Patients' Satisfaction and Convenience

Background

A complete cleansing of the bowel is a critical factor that impacts the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopies. However, the common bowel preparation regimen of two 45 mL doses of sodium phosphate (2×NaP) often leads to uncomfortable symptoms and subsequently lower patient adherence. To improve patient adherence and satisfaction, we proposed a modified regimen composed of two sennoside tablets and one bottle of NaP (S+NaP) and we then evaluated bowel preparation quality and patient satisfaction.

Material/Methods

A total of 531 patients who underwent colonoscopies at the outpatient coloproctology clinic from January 2016 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Eligible patients were divided into two groups: S+NaP group (n=93) and 2×NaP group (n=60). We compared bowel preparation quality, adenoma detection rate (ADR), self-reported patient satisfaction scores, and adverse events among the two groups.

Results

Regarding high bowel preparation quality, our results showed that there was no significant difference among the two groups (p=0.775), as well as no significant differences in ADRs (p=0.187). However, a lower proportion of nausea was found in the S+NaP group compared to the 2×NaP group (24.7% versus 41.7%, respectively, p=0.028). In addition, patients in the S+NaP group were more likely to be very satisfied with the regimen compared with patients in the 2×NaP group (odds ratio: 5.58; 95% confidence interval: 2.36–13.213, p<0.001).

Conclusions

Our modified bowel preparation regimen, S+NaP, yielded significantly higher patient satisfaction with less nausea while maintaining similar bowel preparation quality.

[Acute kidney failure and renal replacement therapy after colonoscopy in a 63-year-old woman]

A 63-year-old woman presented with intestinal disorder, alternating between obstipation and diarrhoea. Sodium phosphate/diphosphate (Fleet®) was used in preparation for colonoscopy. Within 24 h the patient developed severe hyperphosphatemia and oliguric acute kidney failure with the need of renal replacement therapy. This case illustrates the rare event of phosphate nephropathy after colonoscopy.

Intraoperative bowel cleansing tool in active locomotion capsule endoscopy

Capsule endoscopy (CE) can be considered an example of "disruptive technology" since it represents a bright alternative to traditional diagnostic methodologies. If compared with traditional endoscopy, bowel cleansing procedure in CE becomes of greater importance, due to the impossibility to intraoperatively operate on unclean gastrointestinal tract areas. Considering the promising results and benefits obtained in the field of CE for gastrointestinal diagnosis and intervention, the authors approached the bowel cleansing issue with the final aim to propose an innovative and easy-to-use intraoperative cleansing system to be applied to an active locomotion softly-tethered capsule device, already developed by the authors. The system, that has to be intended as an additional tool for intraoperatively cleansing procedure of the colonic tract, is composed by a flexible tube with a metallic deflector attached to the distal end; it can be headed to the target area through the capsule operating channel. Performances of the colonoscopic capsule and intraoperative cleansing capabilities were successfully confirmed both in an in-vitro and ex-vivo experimental session. The innovative intraoperative cleansing system demonstrated promising results in terms of water injection, colonic wall cleansing procedure and subsequent water suction, thus guaranteeing to reduce the risk of inadequate visualization of the mucosa in endoscopic procedures.

Prospective, randomized comparison of same-day dose of 2 different bowel cleanser for afternoon colonoscopy: picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid versus polyethylene glycol

For afternoon colonoscopy, same-day administration of sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (PM/Ca) is recommended. However, few studies have evaluated the bowel-cleansing efficacy and safety of this regimen. The aim of this study was to compare the bowel-cleansing efficacy, side effects, and patient's tolerability of a same-day split administration of PM/Ca with polyethylene glycol (PEG) for afternoon colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned to a PM/Ca group or a PEG group. The PM/Ca group consumed 1 sachet of PM/Ca at 06:00 and 1 sachet of PM/Ca 4 hours before the colonoscopy. They also took 2 tablets of bisacodyl before sleep on the night before. The PEG group consumed 2 L of PEG at 06:00 and 2 L of PEG 4 hours before the colonoscopy. All subjects were instructed to finish the bowel cleanser or fluid at least 2 hours before colonoscopy. All colonoscopic examinations were performed in the afternoon on the same day. The bowel-cleansing efficacy was scored using 2 scales: the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) and the Aronchick scale. Ease of using the bowel cleanser was rated from 1 (very easy) to 5 (very difficult). Two hundred nine patients underwent colonoscopy. The bowel-cleansing scores by OBPS did not differ between groups (5.0 vs 4.9, P = 0.63). Ease of using the bowel cleanser was superior in the PM/Ca group (P < 0.01). The cleansing efficacy of PM/Ca administered on the day of colonoscopy is comparable to that of PEG. Patients prefer PM/Ca.

Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Lavage Solution versus Colonic Hydrotherapy for Bowel Preparation before Colonoscopy: A Single Center, Randomized, and Controlled Study

This single center, randomized, and controlled study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage (PEG-EL) solution and colonic hydrotherapy (CHT) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. A total of 196 eligible outpatients scheduled for diagnostic colonoscopy were randomly assigned to the PEG-EL (n = 102) or CHT (n = 94) groups. Primary outcome measures included colonic cleanliness and adverse effects. Secondary outcome measures were patient satisfaction and preference, colonoscopic findings, ileocecal arrival rate, examiner satisfaction, and cecal intubation time. The results show that PEG-EL group was associated with significantly better colonic cleanliness than CHT group, fewer adverse effects, and increased examiner satisfaction. However, the CHT group had higher patient satisfaction and higher diverticulosis detection rates. Moreover, the results showed the same ileocecal arrival rate and patient preference between the two groups (P > 0.05). These findings indicate that PEG-EL is the preferred option in patients who followed the preparation instructions completely.

Can nutritional supplements and rectal enema be used as bowel cleansing for colonoscopy?--Results of a randomized controlled pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Currently available preparations for colonoscopy have low tolerability and may cause fluid and electrolyte shifts. An alternative method of bowel cleansing is required.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Preparation of the gut using oral nutritional supplements (ONS) and rectal enema was tested as an alternative method of bowel cleansing. During 2008-2012, patients were randomized to oral nutritional supplements (n = 27) for 5 days and rectal enema or polyethylene glycol (PEG) (n = 23) prior to colonoscopy. Blinded endoscopists rated the degree of bowel cleansing according to the Ottawa bowel preparation scale (OBS) (primary outcome). Tolerability of either preparation was also assessed

RESULTS

Due to a high rate of bowel cleansing failure among patients receiving ONS, the study was interrupted prematurely. Colonoscopies were incomplete due to stools in 6 of 27 patients in the ONS group compared to 1 of 23 in the PEG group (ns). The mean total OBS were 8.3 ± 3.3 and 5.3 ± 2.8, respectively (p = 0.002). Four patients (15%) in the ONS group and eight patients (35%) receiving PEG had an OBS score ≤4 (good preparation) (ns). ONS was better tolerated than PEG with more patients reporting acceptable taste (27 of 27 [100%] vs. 15 of 23 [65%], p = 0.001), and fewer reporting difficulties with the intake (0 of 27 [0%] vs. 10 of 23 [43%], p < 0.001) and nausea (5 of 27 [19%] vs. 13 of 23 [57%], p < 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

For routine use, ONS with enema instead of traditional preparation for colonoscopy with PEG cannot be generally recommended.

Investigating the frail elderly patient with lower bowel symptoms: what do we do now and can we improve?

AIMS

To assess the utility of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) and minimal preparation CT (MPCT) in investigating lower gastrointestinal (LGI) symptoms in elderly patients who are too frail to undergo colonoscopy or spiral CT.

METHODS

All FS examinations performed in patients aged over 70 between 1 January and 31 December 2008 were analysed. Predictors of usefulness were determined using multivariable analysis. In patients who also underwent MPCT, we analyzed the correlation between FS and MPCT.

RESULTS

426 FS were performed. Bowel preparation was inadequate in 24% of procedures. Indications in which FS was useful were: radiological abnormality (odds ratio [OR] 9.32), history of polyps (OR 4.54) and rectal bleeding (OR 1.73). Indications for which FS was least useful were: change in bowel habit (OR 0.22), diarrhoea (OR 0.46) and constipation (OR 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

LGI investigation in frail elderly patients can be rationalised according to indication. Performing FS and MPCT together is not always necessary.

Difficult colonoscopies in the propofol era

BACKGROUND

To study the relationship between endoscopic practice and adverse events during colonoscopy under standard deep sedation induced and monitored by an anesthetist.

METHODS

We investigated the routine activity of an endoscopy center at the Padova University teaching hospital. We considered not only endoscopic and cardiorespiratory complications, but also the need to use high-dose propofol to complete the procedure, and the inability to complete the procedure. Variables relating to the patient's clinical conditions, bowel preparation, the endoscopist's and the anesthetist's experience, and the duration of the procedure were input in the model.

RESULTS

617 procedures under deep sedation were performed with a 5% rate of adverse events. The average dose of propofol used was 2.6 ± 1.2 mg/kg. In all, 14 endoscopists and 42 anesthetists were involved in the procedures. The logistic regression analysis identified female gender (OR=2.3), having the colonoscopy performed by a less experienced endoscopist (OR=1.9), inadequate bowel preparation (OR=3.2) and a procedure lasting longer than 17.5 minutes (OR=1.6) as the main risk factors for complications. An ASA score of 2 carried a 50% risk reduction (OR=0.5).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our model showed that none of the variables relating to anesthesiological issues influenced which procedures would prove difficult.

Colonoscopias realizadas por médicos residentes em hospital universitário: análise consecutiva de 1000 casos

RACIONAL: A colonoscopia tem indicação para diagnóstico em pacientes sintomáticos e é eficaz no rastreamento e vigiância de pacientes assintomáticos. Tem potencial terapêutico em diversas situções, principalmente na remoção das lesões polipóides. A proficiência e a competência do endoscopista é o esteio para o sucesso da colonoscopia diagnóstica e terapêutica. OBJETIVO: Analisar as indicações, os achados diagnósticos, e as complicações de colonoscopias realizadas por médicos residentes em um hospital universitário. MÉTODOS: Foram avaliadas 1.000 colonoscopias consecutivas realizadas por residentes de quarto ano, sob supervisão direta de colonoscopistas experientes. Foram obtidas informações sobre os dados demográficos dos pacientes, o preparo intestinal, as indicações para o procedimento, o sucesso do procedimento, os achados diagnósticos e as complicações. RESULTADOS: Foram examinados total de 596 (59,6%) mulheres e 404 (40,4%) homens. A idade variou de três a 99 anos (média 53,8). O preparo intestinal foi realizado com solução de manitol a 10% em 978 pacientes (97,8%), sendo considerada adequada em 97,6% dos casos. Principais indicações foram: diagnóstico (56,4%), terapêutica (9,6%), rastreamento (17,3%) e vigilância (22%). Taxas de intubação do ceco e válvula ileocecal foram 90,3 e 58,6%, respectivamente. A colonoscopia foi normal em 45,8% dos casos. O diagnóstico mais comum foi diverticulose (18,5%), seguido por pólipos (17%) e neoplasias (6,8%). Achados consistentes com um processo inflamatório foram identificados em 122 pacientes (12,2%) e anomalias vasculares foram detectadas em 11 pacientes (1,1%). Outros diagnósticos representaram 3,9% dos casos. Houve dois casos (0,2%) de complicações (hematoma e hemorragia submucosa), ambos após polipectomia, sem necessidade de intervenção cirúrgica. CONCLUSÃO: Os residentes sob supervisão e orientação de especialistas podem realizar colonoscopias com excelente resultado, baixo índice de complicações e com dados finais comparáveis aos obtidos por endoscopistas experientes.

A randomized controlled trial of four precolonoscopy bowel cleansing regimens

BACKGROUND

The ideal bowel cleansing regimen for colonoscopy has yet to be determined.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cleansing efficacy, and patient tolerability and safety of four bowel preparation regimens.

METHODS

A total of 834 patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned to one of four regimens: 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG); 2 L PEG + 20 mg bisacodyl; 90 mL of sodium phosphate (NaP); or two sachets of a commercially available bowel cleansing solution (PSMC) + 300 mL of magnesium citrate (M). The primary outcome measure was cleansing efficacy, which was scored by blinded endoscopists using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcome measures were bowel preparation quality according to time of colonoscopy, and patient tolerability and safety.

RESULTS

The mean total cleansing score was significantly worse in the NaP group compared with the other three groups (P<0.0001). The mean cleansing scores were worse in patients who underwent morning versus afternoon colonoscopy, a finding that was consistent in all four groups. PSMC + M was the best tolerated regimen. No clinically significant mean changes in creatinine or electrolyte levels were identified, although a significantly higher proportion of patients in the NaP group developed hypokelemia (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

2 L PEG + 20 mg bisacodyl, or PSMC + M was as efficacious as 4 L PEG and superior to NaP for bowel cleansing. A short interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy (ie, 'runway time'), irrespective of bowel preparation regimen, appeared to be a more important predictor of bowel cleanliness than the cathartic agents used.

Impact of previous gastric or colonic resection on polyethylene glycol bowel preparation for colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful completion of colonoscopy. This study examines whether previous bowel resection affects the quality of bowel preparation.

METHODS

This study prospectively included patients who had gastric or colonic resection (bowel resection group, n = 92) and a control group (n = 92). All patients received 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation. Quality of colonic preparation was assessed using the Aronchick scale (excellent, good, fair, or poor) and was categorized as satisfactory (excellent or good) or unsatisfactory (fair or poor). We analyzed whether previous gastric or colonic resection is associated with unsatisfactory preparation.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation quality was significantly different between the resection group (0, 39.1, 43.5, and 17.4%, for excellent, good, fair, and poor) and control group (3.3, 53.3, 38.0, and 5.5% for excellent, good, fair, and poor, P = 0.011). Inadequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the resection group than in the control group (60.9% vs. 43.5%, P = 0.018). Univariate analysis revealed height, weight, body mass index, and bowel resection to be predictors of unsatisfactory preparation. Multivariate analysis revealed bowel resection [odds ratio (OR) 2.12; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-3.86] and obesity (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m(2)) (OR 2.16; 95% CI: 1.13-4.12) to be independent predictors of unsatisfactory preparation. The prevalence of unsatisfactory and poor bowel preparation quality was 79.3 and 37.9% in obese patients with previous bowel resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous bowel resection was an independent predictor of unsatisfactory PEG bowel preparation. More attention is needed for patients with previous bowel resection, especially for obese patients.

Intermediate bioelectrolyte changes after phospho-soda or polyethylene glycol precolonoscopic laxatives in a population undergoing health examinations

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a common procedure for diagnosing and screening colon cancer and other bowel-related diseases. Many studies have pointed out that using phospho-soda as a bowel preparation can cause obvious electrolyte abnormalities or acute kidney injury. Nonetheless, there are few studies related to its prevalence and risk factors in the population undergoing health examinations. Our aim was to compare the biochemical and electrolyte changes after using two commonly used bowel preparation regimens in this population.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we collected data about participants who, before a screening colonoscopy, used oral phospho-soda laxatives in 2006, and those who used polyethylene glycol-based laxatives in 2005. Several serum biochemical and electrolyte profiles were compared between the two groups. Additional risk factors of hyperphosphatemia, a well-known side effect of phospho-soda, were also derived.

RESULTS

We enrolled a total of 2270 participants (1321 in 2005; 1449 in 2006). The basic demographic data of the two groups were not statistically different. Nonetheless, between the two groups, some serum biochemical and electrolytic data differed significantly: in those using oral phospho-soda laxatives, we found a higher prevalence of hyperuricemia, hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, hypernatremia and hyperphosphatemia. Further analyses showed that using oral phospho-soda laxatives was a risk factor for hyperphosphatemia; conversely, being male was a protective factor.

CONCLUSION

Oral phospho-soda laxatives indeed influence the biochemical and electrolyte profiles of persons undergoing health examinations. One should be careful when interpreting bioelectrolytic data while using phospho-soda as a bowel preparation.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Simethicone for gastrointestinal endoscopic visibility

BACKGROUND

The value of supplemental use of Simethicone in endoscopy including capsule endoscopy (CE), colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy is not addressed and is controversial.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies on the use of Simethicone for endoscopy were carried out. The effects of this preparation on the following endpoints were examined: small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ), completion rate, gastric transit time, small bowel transit time, diagnostic yield, efficacy of bowel preparation, degree of air bubbles and duration time.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies were eligible in this meta-analysis; 4 studies comparing purgative or fasting plus Simethicone with purgative or fasting alone for capsule endoscopy were identified. For patients who had supplemental Simethicone before CE, the SBVQ was significantly better ([odds ratio] OR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.74-4.65, p = 0.00), and the completion rate was comparable (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.44-1.44, p = 0.454). Also, 7 studies comparing purgative plus Simethicone with purgative alone for colonoscopy were identified. For patients who had supplemental Simethicone before colonoscopy, the efficacy of colon preparation was comparable (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 0.56-7.53, p = 0.27), but the air bubbles were significantly decreased (OR = 39.32, 95% CI: 11.38-135.86, p = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

Supplemental use of Simethicone before endoscopy improves the SBVQ, especially for patients who received no purgative, but does not affect the CE completion rate. It decreases air bubbles in the colonic lumen, but does not improve bowel preparation. And its effect on diagnostic yield remains controversial.

Comparative study on two colonic bowel preparations for patients with chronic constipation

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy, tolerance, and safety of oral sodium phosphate compared with polyethylene glycol in patients with chronic constipation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From May 2007 to October 2007, 100 patients with chronic constipation were prospectively randomized into two groups for colonoscopy. Group A (n=49) received sodium phosphate before colonoscopy, while Group B (n=51) received polyethylene glycol. During the same period, another 50 patients in Group C with normal defecation function were enrolled and received the polyethylene glycol preparation. Patients with intestinal stenosis found by colonoscopy were excluded. The quality of preparation was assessed by the endoscopist, who was blinded to the types of bowel preparation. Laboratory examinations including hematocrit, serum phosphorous, serum calcium, blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine were carried out in Groups A and B before and after preparation. A questionnaire was used to assess adverse effects and patients' tolerance to the bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Two patients in Group A with a diagnosis of malignant tumor detected by colonoscopy were excluded. The baseline parameters, including weight, age, gender, endoscopic diagnosis, or constipation status, were homogeneously distributed in the three groups. It was shown that the quality of preparation in Group B was poorer than that in Group C (p<0.05). Compared with Group B, Group A showed better quality of preparation, a smaller amount of intestinal air bubble, and a higher number of defecations after taking the medicine (p<0.05 for all). There were no significant differences in acceptance of the two preparations and the prevalence of adverse effects. Transient hyperphosphatasemia was noted in four patients in Group A, but neither clinical symptoms nor hypocalcemia was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our preliminary study, in the preparation of patients with chronic constipation for colonoscopy, sodium phosphate is just as well tolerated and safe as a standard polyethylene glycol preparation and might provide a better quality of bowel preparation.

Oral sodium phosphates solution versus polyethylene glycol for colon cleansing prior to radiological assessment

A clean bowel environment is essential prior to radiological assessment of the colon. The objectives were to determine patient compliance and acceptability, physician satisfaction, overall clinical effectiveness and tolerability with the use of oral sodium phosphates (Fosfosoda) and polyethylene glycol solutions as bowel cleansing agents in a relatively large cohort of Spanish patients requiring radiologic examination of the colon. This was an observational survey involving 592 patients (> or =18 years and approximately 60% women) who received Fosfosoda or polyethylene glycol solutions according to data sheet instructions. Parameters measured included mucosal cleansing (presence of solid residues), patient acceptability (including any adverse effects to treatment) and compliance with the treatment regimen, and physician-rated satisfaction with the procedure. The date from the study demonstrated that Fosfosoda and polyethylene glycol solutions were found to be equally well tolerated in this study, although patients receiving Fosfosoda found it easier to complete the treatment regimen. Fosfosoda was significantly superior to polyethylene glycol solutions with regards to mucosal cleansing with 52% achieving an 'excellent' result compared with only 36% of the polyethylene glycol group (relative risk:1.43; 95% confidence interval: 1.12-1.82). Physician-rated assessment of the bowel cleansing procedure also significantly favored Fosfosoda (p = 0.014). In conclusion, while Fosfosoda and polyethylene glycol solutions were equally well tolerated when given to patients prior to radiologic examination of the colon, Fosfosoda was shown to be significantly more effective in terms of bowel cleansing. Based upon the available evidence this could provide significant cost benefit for Fosfosoda.

Acute phosphate nephropathy-an emerging threat

BACKGROUND

Acute phosphate nephropathy (APN) is a clinicopathological entity causing renal failure, after ingestion of oral sodium phosphate solution (OSPS). Approximately 25 cases have been described, but OSPS is still widely used. This study reports a further 5 cases and discusses the ever-growing significance of APN.

METHODS

Five cases of APN were included, 3 retrospectively whereas 2 were diagnosed prospectively. In all, use of OSPS was established, and other causes of nephrocalcinosis were excluded.

RESULTS

Average age was 67.4 +/- 7.0 years, with a female preponderance (4:1). All patients had hypertension. Baseline serum creatinine: 0.7 to 1.2 mg/dL (creatinine clearance: 52 to 77 mL/min). Time from colonoscopy to presentation was 56 +/- 36 days. Serum creatinine levels at presentation: 1.4 to 3.6 mg/dL. Time from colonoscopy to renal biopsy was 123 +/- 88 days. Urinalysis showed minimal proteinuria, leucocyturia, and hematuria. One patient had renal glucosuria. All patients were anemic (hemoglobin 8.8-11.4 gr/dL). Serum calcium and phosphate were normal. One required hemodialysis. Mean follow-up was 36 +/- 17 months. Serum creatinine levels at end of follow-up were 1.3 to 3.1 mg/dL. Renal function did not recover completely in any patient. Four required long-term erythropoietin treatment. The prominent histopathological findings were calcium-phosphate tubular depositions (100%), interstitial fibrosis (80%), hypertensive changes (80%), and acute tubular degenerative and regenerative changes (60%).

CONCLUSIONS

APN is a serious, irreversible renal complication of OSPS. It is probably under-recognized. Risk factors include female gender, older age, hypertension, and renal failure, although it may occur with preexisting normal renal function.

Mechanical bowel preparation in intestinal surgery: a meta-analysis and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Despite several meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials showing no benefit to patients, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) remains the standard of practice for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature of trials that prospectively compared MBP with no MBP for patients undergoing elective colorectal resection. We searched MEDLINE, LILACS, and SCISEARCH, abstracts of pertinent scientific meetings and reference lists for each article found. Experts in the field were queried as to knowledge of additional reports. Outcomes abstracted were anastomotic leaks and wound infections. Meta-analysis was performed using Peto Odds ratio.

RESULTS

Of 4,601 patients (13 trials), 2,304 received MBP (Group 1) and 2,297 did not (Group 2). Anastomotic leaks occurred in 97(4.2%) patients in Group 1 and in 81(3.5%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.214, CI 95%:0.899-1.64, P = 0.206). Wound infections occurred in 227(9.9%) patients in Group 1 and in 201(8.8%) patients in Group 2 (Peto OR = 1.156, CI 95%:0.946-1.413, P = 0.155).

DISCUSSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that MBP provides no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, thus, supporting elimination of routine MBP in elective colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, MBP is of no benefit to patients undergoing elective colorectal resection and need not be recommended to meet "standard of care."

Is bowel preparation before colonoscopy a risky business for the kidney?

Acute phosphate nephropathy after bowel preparation with oral sodium phosphate (OSP) for colonoscopy has emerged as an important clinical entity. In 2004, five cases of nephrocalcinosis and irreversible renal failure after bowel preparation with OSP were reported. More recently, several retrospective studies have shown that the incidence of acute kidney injury after OSP use is in the range of 1-4%, similar to the incidence of contrast nephropathy in the general population. The degree of renal failure is not generally as severe as in the first reported cases, but irreversible damage can still occur. Millions of people worldwide undergo screening colonoscopies for colon and rectal cancer after the age of 50, so careful patient selection and monitoring for possible complications is essential when OSP is used. In addition to educating patients about the possibility of renal damage, physicians should routinely watch for considerable weight loss during bowel preparation and correct the fluid deficit as needed. Carrying out a renal function panel, which includes serum phosphorus level, is prudent after colonoscopy. Alternative bowel cleansing agents are needed because calcium phosphate precipitation is inevitable after OSP use even in the normal kidney.

Adverse renal and metabolic effects associated with oral sodium phosphate bowel preparation

Colorectal cancer can be prevented by the removal of adenomatous polyps during screening colonoscopy, but adequate bowel preparation is required. Oral sodium phosphate (OSP), an effective bowel purgative, is available over the counter and requires a substantially lower volume than polyethylene glycol-based preparative agents. Accumulating reports implicate OSP in electrolyte disturbances as well as acute kidney injury (AKI) in a syndrome termed phosphate nephropathy (a form of nephrocalcinosis). Despite published case reports and case series, the actual incidence, risk factors, and natural history of phosphate nephropathy remain largely undefined. Several recent observational studies have provided new information on these important issues while supporting a link between OSP and acute phosphate nephropathy as well as the development of chronic kidney disease in elderly patients, many of whom had a normal serum creatinine at the time of OSP ingestion. This review summarizes current knowledge about the renal complications of OSP, risk factors for its development, and the pathophysiology of acute and chronic kidney damage in nephrocalcinosis.

The renal safety of bowel preparations for colonoscopy: a comparative study of oral sodium phosphate solution and polyethylene glycol

BACKGROUND

Rare cases of nephrotoxicity have been reported with oral sodium phosphate solution (OSPS).

AIM

To evaluate whether OSPS is associated with changes in renal function.

METHODS

A chart review performed on 311 patients who had colonoscopy at the James J. Peters VA Medical Centre prepared with either OSPS (n = 157) or polyethylene glycol (PEG) (n = 154). Patients had a baseline serum creatinine <or=1.5 mg/dL. Effect of bowel preparation on the renal function was evaluated by measuring the absolute change in levels of serum creatinine and the proportion of patients who developed a 50% or more increase above their baseline serum creatinine value.

RESULTS

Oral sodium phosphate solution resulted in a slight increase in serum creatinine from 1.0 +/- 0.02 to 1.1 +/- 0.02 mg/dL (P = 0.07) and PEG resulted in a small decrease in serum creatinine from 1.1 +/- 0.02 to 1.0 +/- 0.03 mg/dL (P = 0.03). The absolute change in serum creatinine was slightly higher with OSPS than with PEG (0.04 +/- 0.02 vs. -0.05 +/- 0.02 mg/dL; P = 0.005). However, the proportion of patients who had a >or=50% increase above their baseline creatinine was similar (OSPS vs. PEG, 5% vs. 3%, P = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral sodium phosphate solution was associated with a slight increase in serum creatinine, which was not clinically significant. Renal toxicity from OSPS appears to be minimal when used in patients with serum creatinine value <1.5 mg/dL.