Update on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

Emerging space for non-polyethene-glycol bowel preparations in inflammatory bowel disease-related colonoscopy: Veering toward better adherence and palatability

Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) require repeated endoscopic evaluations over time by colonoscopy to weigh disease activity but also for different and additional indications (e.g., evaluation of postoperative recurrence, colorectal cancer surveillance). Colonoscopy, however, requires adequate bowel preparation to be of quality. The latter is achieved as long as the patient takes a certain amount of product to have a number of bowel movements suitable to clean the colon and allow optimal visualization of the mucosa during endoscopy. However, significant guidelines recommend preparations for patients with IBD not excelling in palatability. This recommendation originates from the fact that most of the studies conducted on bowel preparations in patients with IBD have been done with isosmolar preparations based on polyethylene glycol (PEG), for which, therefore, more safety data exist. As a result, the low-volume non-PEG preparations (e.g., magnesium citrate plus picosulphate, oral sulphate solutions) have been set aside for the whole range of warnings to be heeded because of their hyperosmolarity. New studies, however, are emerging, leaning in overall for a paradigm shift in this matter. Indeed, such non-PEG preparations seem to show a particularly encouraging and engaging safety profile when considering their broad potential for tolerability and patient preference. Indeed, such evidence is insufficient to indicate such preparations in all patients with IBD but may pave the way for those with remission or well-controlled disease. This article summarizes the central studies conducted in IBD settings using non-PEG preparations by discussing their results.

The effectiveness of walking exercise on the bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a single blind randomized clinical trial study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Bowel preparation is a crucial factor affecting the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy, and few randomized control trials evaluated enhancement in bowel preparation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of walking exercises on bowel preparation before a colonoscopy procedure.

METHODS

The present study is a single-blind randomized controlled trial involving 262 patients scheduled for colonoscopy procedures. These patients were randomly assigned to two groups: an intervention group (n = 131) and a control group (n = 131). In the intervention group, participants followed a predetermined plan that included the consumption of specific liquids and foods, bisacodyl pills, polyethylene glycol powder, and a regimen of walking exercises in preparation for their colonoscopy. Conversely, individuals in the control group followed the same regimen but were not instructed to engage in walking exercises. On the day of the colonoscopy, both groups were assessed for their level of physical activity using a foot counter. Additionally, an experienced gastroenterologist evaluated and compared the bowel preparation between the two groups using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

RESULTS

The number of footsteps recorded in the two groups exhibited a significant difference (P < 0.001). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups in terms of mean BBPS scores (6.26 ± 1.9 vs. 6.29 ± 1.9, P = 0.416), individuals who took more than 6900 steps had significantly higher BBPS scores compared to those with fewer than 6900 footsteps (6.62 ± 1.8 vs. 5.92 ± 1.9, P = 0.003).In the univariate analysis, BBPS was found to be significantly associated with individuals under the age of 50 (OR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.30-4.61, P = 0.006) and smoking status (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.17-0.94, P = 0.043). In the multivariate analysis, the relationship between BBPS and age below 50 and smoking remained significant (OR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.30-4.70, P = 0.005, and OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.93, P = 0.034, respectively).

CONCLUSION

A higher number of footsteps taken especially more than 6900 can significantly enhance bowel preparation; however, walking exercise as an intervention before colonoscopy is not significantly associated with BBPS. Also, older people and smokers seem to have fewer benefits from walking exercises for bowel preparation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN32724024 (Registration date:22/08/2018).

Utility of early colonoscopy for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Early colonoscopy (within 8-24 h) is recommended in different guidelines for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). Despite this recommendation, evidence for its effectiveness are conflicting, and early colonoscopy is often not performed.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the utility of early colonoscopy by examining the findings during the procedure, and by comparing in-hospital and long-term outcomes between patients who did and did not undergo early colonoscopy.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study based on the electronic medical records of a large tertiary hospital in Israel.

METHODS

All patients hospitalized with acute LGIB to acute wards between 2012 and 2022 were included. First, structured and free-text procedure notes from patients who did undergo early colonoscopy were examined. Second, we compared in-hospital and long-term outcomes between patients who did and did not undergo early colonoscopy while adjusting for possible confounders using multivariable regression of the type appropriate for each outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, 953 patients were included, of which 90 underwent early colonoscopy. The majority (54%) were found insufficiently prepared. Common findings were diverticulosis (38%) and colon polyps (20%). The procedure was effective for hemostasis in only 13% of the cases. Early colonoscopy was not significantly associated with increased survival (exponentiated coefficient = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.76, 1.87), decreased length of hospitalization (exponentiated coefficient = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.97, 1.21), or increased blood hemoglobin at discharge (coefficient =-0.27, 95% CI: -0.58, 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Early colonoscopy was often not effective and was not associated with significantly improved outcomes.

Seizure from water intoxication following bowel preparation: a case report

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation prior to colonoscopic examination is generally considered a safe process. Hyponatremia is a complication that has been reported in literature during bowel preparation. Individuals who develop severe symptomatic hyponatremia are often older and have comorbidities such as hypothyroidism, chronic kidney disease, or adrenal insufficiency. However, other mechanisms and circumstances can also lead to this potentially fatal complication.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a unique case of a patient who developed seizure prior to colonoscopy due to acute hyponatremia without any well-known risk factors. With the subsequent diagnosis of water intoxication, the use of desmopressin was believed to have contributed to this serious complication.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the use of certain well-documented medications and the presence of comorbidities that can lead to hyponatremia, clinicians should also be aware of the use of desmopressin as an important risk factor. Thorough history taking can guide individualized bowel preparation regimens to minimize the risk of undesired complications.

Effect of nurse-performed enhanced patient education on colonoscopy bowel preparation quality

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the effect of nurse-performed enhanced patient education sessions on adequate bowel preparation and cecal intubation rates.

METHOD

a prospective, quasi-experimental, comparative study with a quantitative approach. The intervention group (n=150) received education enhanced by a visual presentation and reminder calls. The control group (n=156) received the clinic's standard written instructions. Adequate bowel preparation rates and other colonoscopy quality indicators were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Boston Bowel Preparation scale scores and adequate bowel preparation rates were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (respectively, 6.76±2.1 vs. 5.56±2.4, p=0.000, and 80% vs. 69.2%, p=0.031). The cecal intubation rates were higher in the intervention group (80% vs. 67.3%, p=0.012). Due to inadequate bowel preparation, unsuccessful cecal intubation rates were 0% in the intervention group and 17.6% in the control group. Biopsy rates were higher in the intervention group (28% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002).

CONCLUSION

the nurse-performed enhanced patient education sessions increase adequate bowel preparation rates and, in parallel, cecal intubation rates. To reach the colonoscopy quality standards recommended in the guidelines, it is suggested that patient education be supported by different training tools and given by health professionals.

Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A cross-sectional study of the Chinese population

Background

The quality of bowel preparation is an important factor in the success of colonoscopy. However, the quality of bowel preparation is often affected by multiple factors. The main objective of this study was to explore the specific factors that affect the quality of bowel preparation.

Methods

Patients were consecutively recruited from the gastroenterology department in Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan from May 2018 to December 2018. All patients were undergoing colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was evaluated by the Ottawa Bowel preparation Scale (OBPS) and all patients were categorized into 2 groups according to the OBPS. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify the factors associated with bowel preparation quality.

Results

A total of 910 patients were included in the analysis with an average age of 48.62 ± 13.57 years. Patient source (P < 0.001) and the preparation method (P = 0.029) were correlated with OBPS adequacy. In addition, after stratified by age, preparation method (P = 0.022) was a significant factor among patients under 50 years old; whereas waiting time (P = 0.005) was a significant factor among patients over 50 years old.

Conclusion

Bowel preparation should be tailored based on the age of the patients to determine the most appropriate plan, including the most appropriate waiting time and the most appropriate purgative combination. Doctors should also focus more on the quality of bowel preparation in inpatients, who are more likely than outpatients to have an inadequate bowel preparation.

From advanced diagnosis to advanced resection in early neoplastic colorectal lesions: Never-ending and trending topics in the 2020s

Colonoscopy represents the most widespread and effective tool for the prevention and treatment of early stage preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in the panorama of cancer screening. In the world there are different approaches to the topic of colorectal cancer prevention and screening: different starting ages (45-50 years); different initial screening tools such as fecal occult blood with immunohistochemical or immune-enzymatic tests; recto-sigmoidoscopy; and colonoscopy. The key aspects of this scenario are composed of a proper bowel preparation that ensures a valid diagnostic examination, experienced endoscopist in detection of preneoplastic and early neoplastic lesions and open-minded to upcoming artificial intelligence-aided examination, knowledge in the field of resection of these lesions (from cold-snaring, through endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, up to advanced tools), and management of complications.

Bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy with a new colonic irrigation device: Results of a prospective observational study

Background and study aims  The success of colonoscopy is mainly dependent on the effectiveness of prior bowel preparation (BP). Patients often consider BP to be the most burdensome part of colonoscopy, which might be a main barrier to the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and effectiveness of colonic irrigation with a new colon hydrotherapy (CHT) device as an alternative to traditional oral BP. Patients and methods  A prospective, non-randomized observational study was conducted to evaluate the quality of BP. A BP was considered effective if a score of 6 or better through the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) could be reached. Colonoscopy was performed immediately following colonic irrigation. For safety analysis, data on adverse events (AEs) were collected. Among the secondary outcomes, the BBPS assessed in each bowel segment and cecal intubation rate were analyzed. Results  Twenty-eight consecutive patients (11 male [39.3%] and 17 [60.7 %] female) undergoing screening/surveillance or diagnostic colonoscopy were enrolled. Mean age was 54 ± 12.4 years (range 19-80). The evaluated mean BBPS was 7.8 ± 1.5. Twenty-five patients (89.3 %) had a BBPS score of 6 or above. Colonic irrigation was performed without any complications and no AEs were reported within 30 days. The cecal intubation rate was 100 %. Conclusions  Colonic irrigation with a new CHT device is an effective and low-risk alternative to traditional oral preparation prior to colonoscopy.

Regression and Random Forest Machine Learning Have Limited Performance in Predicting Bowel Preparation in Veteran Population

BACKGROUND

Inadequate bowel preparation undermines the quality of colonoscopy, but patients likely to be affected are difficult to identify beforehand.

AIMS

This study aimed to develop, validate, and compare prediction models for bowel preparation inadequacy using conventional logistic regression (LR) and random forest machine learning (RFML).

METHODS

We created a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy at a single VA medical center between January 2012 and October 2015. Candidate predictor variables were chosen after a literature review. We extracted all available predictor variables from the electronic medical record, and bowel preparation from the endoscopy database. The data were split into 70% training and 30% validation sets. Multivariable LR and RFML were used to predict preparation inadequacy as a dichotomous outcome.

RESULTS

The cohort included 6,885 Veterans, of whom 964 (14%) had inadequate preparation. Using LR, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the validation cohort was 0.66 (95% CI 0.62, 0.69) and the Brier score, in which a lower score indicates better performance, was 0.11. Using RFML, the AUC for the validation cohort was 0.61 (95% CI 0.58, 0.65) and the Brier score was 0.12.

CONCLUSIONS

LR and RFML had similar performance in predicting bowel preparation, which was modest and likely insufficient for use in practice. Future research is needed to identify additional predictor variables and to test other machine learning algorithms. At present, endoscopy units should focus on universal strategies to enhance preparation adequacy.

Adverse Events Associated with Routine Colonoscopy in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although colonoscopy has been widely performed in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), studies on the safety of routine colonoscopy, including bowel preparation and sedation, in these patients are limited. This study aimed to investigate the safety of colonoscopy in patients with ESRD who underwent peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 538 patients with ESRD who underwent colonoscopy between 2010 and 2020. We compared the incidence of adverse events (AEs) between the ESRD group and a propensity score-matched control group of healthy adults. Cardiovascular/pulmonary and procedure-related AEs were analyzed. We also compared the rates of AEs between patients who underwent PD or HD.

RESULTS

The overall rate of AEs was 5.7% in patients with ESRD, which was significantly higher than that in healthy adults (0.6%, P < 0.001). All AEs were cardiovascular/pulmonary in nature, but no perforation or bleeding occurred. Most AEs were not severe and resolved with medical treatment. The incidence of AEs was higher in the HD group than in the PD group, but the difference was not significant (6.1% vs. 3.5%, respectively, P = 0.451). In the HD group, patients with AEs were significantly older than those without AEs (P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of colonoscopy-related AEs in patients with ESRD on dialysis was higher than that in healthy adults, but most AEs were not severe. Routine colonoscopy may be safely performed in patients with ESRD regardless of the method of dialysis, but more carefully in older patients on HD.

Effect of nurse-performed enhanced patient education on colonoscopy bowel preparation quality

Objective:

to evaluate the effect of nurse-performed enhanced patient education sessions on adequate bowel preparation and cecal intubation rates.

Method:

a prospective, quasi-experimental, comparative study with a quantitative approach. The intervention group (n=150) received education enhanced by a visual presentation and reminder calls. The control group (n=156) received the clinic’s standard written instructions. Adequate bowel preparation rates and other colonoscopy quality indicators were compared between the groups.

Results:

Boston Bowel Preparation scale scores and adequate bowel preparation rates were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (respectively, 6.76±2.1 vs. 5.56±2.4, p=0.000, and 80% vs. 69.2%, p=0.031). The cecal intubation rates were higher in the intervention group (80% vs. 67.3%, p=0.012). Due to inadequate bowel preparation, unsuccessful cecal intubation rates were 0% in the intervention group and 17.6% in the control group. Biopsy rates were higher in the intervention group (28% vs. 13.3%, p=0.002).

Conclusion:

the nurse-performed enhanced patient education sessions increase adequate bowel preparation rates and, in parallel, cecal intubation rates. To reach the colonoscopy quality standards recommended in the guidelines, it is suggested that patient education be supported by different training tools and given by health professionals.

Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I² range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.

Los efectos de la educación perfeccionada, realizada por enfermeros en la calidad de la preparación intestinal para colonoscopia

Resumen Objetivo: evaluar el efecto de la educación perfeccionada realizada por enfermeros en la preparación intestinal adecuada y en las tasas de intubación cecal. Método: estudio prospectivo, casi experimental y comparativo, con abordaje cuantitativo. El grupo de intervención (n=150) recibió la educación perfeccionada y llamadas telefónicas recordatorias. El grupo de control (n=156) recibió las instrucciones estándar de la clínica por escrito. Las tasas de preparación intestinal adecuadas y otros indicadores de la calidad de la colonoscopia fueron comparadas entre los grupos. Resultados: las puntuaciones obtenidas en la Boston Bowel Preparation Scale y las tasas de preparación intestinal adecuadas fueron en el grupo de intervención mayores que en el grupo de control (6,76±2,1 vs. 5,56±2,4, p=0,000, y 80% vs. 69,2%, p=0,031, respectivamente). Las tasas de intubación cecal fueron mayores en el grupo de intervención (80% vs. 67,3%, p=0,012). La tasa de intubación cecal fracasada debido a la preparación intestinal inadecuada fue de 0% en el GI, en cuanto que el GC obtuvo una tasa de 17,6%. Además de eso, las tasas de biopsia fueron mayores en el grupo de intervención (28% vs. 13,3%, p=0,002). Conclusión: la educación del paciente perfeccionada y realizada por enfermeros aumenta las tasas de preparación intestinal adecuadas y, consecuentemente, las tasas de intubación cecal. Para alcanzar los estándares de calidad de colonoscopia recomendados en las directrices, recomendamos que la educación del paciente sea apoyada por diferentes herramientas de entrenamiento y realizada por profesionales de la salud.

Novel frontiers of agents for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is characterized by rapid declines in the wake of widespread screening. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for CRC screening, but its accuracy is related to high quality of bowel preparation (BP). In this review, we aimed to summarized the current strategy to increase bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Newly bowel cleansing agents were developed with the same efficacy of previous agent but requiring less amount of liquid to improve patients’ acceptability. The role of the diet before colonoscopy was also changed, as well the contribution of educational intervention and the use of adjunctive drugs to improve patients’ tolerance and/or quality of BP. The review also described BP in special situations, as lower gastrointestinal bleeding, elderly people, patients with chronic kidney disease, patients with inflammatory bowel disease, patients with congestive heart failure, inpatient, patient with previous bowel resection, pregnant/lactating patients. The review underlined the quality of BP should be described using a validate scale in colonoscopy report and it explored the available scales. Finally, the review explored the possible contribution of bowel cleansing in post-colonoscopy syndrome that can be related by a transient alteration of gut microbiota. Moreover, the study underlined several points needed to further investigations.

Polyethylene Glycol Versus Senna for Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Children: Updated Evidence by a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

For colonoscopy, bowel preparation, especially that using polyethylene glycol (PEG) or senna, is performed among children with gastrointestinal disorders; however, it is not fully grounded in evidence. This study reviewed via meta-analyses the approaches to bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children. Electronic databases and trial registries were searched until April 2021. Quality assessment was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. In total, three randomized controlled trials (318 patients) were identified. PEG was observed as a preferred protocol of bowel preparation compared with senna (risk ratio [RR] 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.74; I2 = 15%). It was less painful than senna (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; I2 = 0%). No serious adverse events were noted. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to moderate. PEG might be a preferred preparation agent for colonoscopy in children. Given the limited data, more studies are recommended.

Safe and appropriate use of laxatives for colonoscopy

Background: Appropriate bowel preparation is essential for effective colonoscopy. Inadequate use of bowel preparation solutions reduces patient compliance, makes the detection of lesions such as adenoma difficult, and increases the risk of complication such as perforation. Current Concepts: A 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution can be safely used for bowel preparation, even in most individuals with underlying diseases. However, it requires a high preparation-volume intake and has poor patient compliance due to its unpleasant taste. Therefore, a 2- or 1- L sulfate-free, PEG-based laxative was developed to, reduce the amount of PEG and improve the taste. Furthermore, simethicon-containing laxative formulation was developed to eliminate gas bubbles. In addition, oral bowel preparation solutions with enema agents and prokinetics were used to improve bowel preparation, but no improvement was observed. Various alternative laxatives are available; however, PEG-based bowel preparation solutions are still recommended in most cases due to their stability. Discussion and Conclusion: Although a 4-L PEG solutions recommended for bowel preparation in most cases, several laxatives have been introduced to overcome its disadvantages. The laxative agent must be selected according to each patient’s specific characteristics. Moreover, the method of taking bowel preparation solutions and additional bowel preparation medications must be carefully chosen. In addition, patient education via various methods, such as using a smartphone, when taking a bowel preparation agent may help improve bowel preparation quality.

Noninferiority clinical trial comparing the bowel cleansing efficacy of sodium phosphate tablets (Quiklean®) with a polyethylene glycol/bisacodyl kit

BACKGROUND

Efficient bowel cleansing is essential for a successful colonoscopy, but the ideal cleansing agent, volume, and pharmaceutical dosage form have yet to be determined. Small-volume cleansers enhance patient compliance.

AIM

To compare the bowel cleansing efficacy of 32-tablet sodium phosphate (Quiklean^®) with 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)/bisacodyl (Klean-Prep/ Dulcolax^®) under identical dietary recommendations.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, noninferiority clinical trial enrolled 472 outpatients, randomized 456 subjects, and scheduled 442 subjects to undergo colonoscopy (Quiklean^® = 222 and Klean-Prep/Dulcolax^® = 220). After bowel preparation, a colonoscopist performed the colonoscopy with video recorded for rating. The primary efficacy endpoint was the bowel cleansing quality using the Aronchick Scale. The secondary endpoints were the bowel cleansing efficacy of three colon segments, tolerability and acceptability, safety using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale, questionnaires by subjects, and monitoring of adverse events.

RESULTS

Success rates (Excellent + Good) of the bowel cleansing quality by Aronchick Scale were 98.6% (n = 205) and 97.6% (n = 204) in the Quiklean^® and Klean-Prep/Dulcolax^® groups, respectively. Quiklean^® demonstrated noninferiority over Klean-Prep/Dulcolax^® in colon cleansing efficacy. Quicken showed better tolerability and acceptability in the overall experience (was rated as excellent; 24.0% vs 17.2%; P = 0.0016) and the taste of the study preparation (was rated as excellent, 23.1% vs 13.4%; P < 0.0001) than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax^®. Safety profiles did not differ between the two groups. Our data indicate that Quiklean^® is an adequate, well-tolerated bowel cleansing preparation compared with the standard comparator Klean-Prep/Dulcolax^®.

CONCLUSION

Quiklean^® is sodium phosphate tablets available on Taiwan’s market for bowel preparation; it potentially offers patients an alternative to standard large-volume bowel preparation regimens and may, therefore, increase positive attitudes toward colonoscopies and participation rates.

Split-Dose Regimen With Bisacodyl Increases the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

The aim of the present study was to compare 2 different bowel preparations procedures (split-dose with PicoPrep and bisacodyl vs. same-day preparation with PicoPrep) in patients undergoing colonoscopy with regard to quality of bowel preparation, compliance, and willingness to repeat. A retrospective quasi-experimental investigation was conducted. Adults with outpatient diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies were included. A total of 540 patients participated: group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' (n = 293) and group 'same-day' (n = 247). Patients in group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' had a higher chance for having an excellent quality of bowel preparation (21.2%; 95% CI [13.5, 28.9]) and a reduced risk of an incomplete colonoscopy (4.1%; 95% CI [1.2, 7.0]). Group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' drank more fluid, had more nightly visits to the bathroom, and had more bathroom stops on the way to the endoscopic site. No differences were found between groups regarding adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, overall time of colonoscopy, well-being during cleansing, patient satisfaction, the professional's assessment of the patient's tolerability of colonoscopy, and willingness to repeat the bowel preparation process. The split-dose regimen with PicoPrep and bisacodyl is now the standard bowel preparation procedure for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy as it is superior to the same-day regimen with PicoPrep regarding colon cleansing and incomplete colonoscopy. Hence, the written and verbal information at our institution regarding the bowel preparation procedure was altered according to the split-dose regimen, emphasizing the importance of adequate oral fluid intake and complete intake of the solution in order to ensure a safe and effective procedure.

Triage May Improve Selection to Colonoscopy and Reduce the Number of Unnecessary Colonoscopies

Implementation of population screening for colorectal cancer by direct colonoscopy or follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test has challenged the overall capacity of bowel examinations. Certain countries are facing serious colonoscopy capacity constraints, which have led to waiting lists and long time latency of follow-up examinations. Various options for improvement are considered, including increased cut-off values of the fecal blood tests. Results from major clinical studies of blood-based, cancer-associated biomarkers have, however, led to focus on a Triage concept for improved selection to colonoscopy. The Triage test may include subject age, concentration of hemoglobin in a feces test and a combination of certain blood-based cancer-associated biomarkers. Recent results have indicated that Triage may reduce the requirements for colonoscopy by around 30%. Such results may be advantageous for the capacity, the healthcare budgets and in particular, the subjects, who do not need an unnecessary, unpleasant and risk-associated bowel examination.

Ward nurses-focused educational intervention improves the quality of bowel preparation in inpatients undergoing colonoscopy: A CONSORT-compliant randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for the detection of pathological lesions during colonoscopy. However, it has been found to be inadequate in approximately 20% to 30% of colonoscopy examinations. Educational interventions focused on health staff, such as physicians and nurses, may improve the patients' understanding of the bowel preparation instructions, and consequently, increase the quality of bowel preparation.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether enhanced education of ward nurses could improve the bowel preparation quality in inpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

DESIGN

This was a single-center randomized controlled study.

METHODS

A total of 190 consecutive inpatients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy from March 2019 to March 2020 were randomized to the educated (nurses with enhanced education) or control group (nurses without enhanced education). We assessed the bowel preparation quality using the Boston bowel preparation scale.

RESULTS

There were 89 patients in the educated group and 101 patients in the control group. The proportion of colonoscopies with adequate bowel preparation was 83.1% in the educated group and 69.3% in the control group. Patients' compliance with bowel preparation in the educated group was superior to that in the control group. Furthermore, significantly better sleep quality was found in the educated group. The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the ward nurses-focused enhanced educational intervention as a risk factor for bowel preparation quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The ward nurses-focused educational intervention improved the bowel preparation quality and reduced the adverse event rates in inpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry under number ChiCTR2000030366.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Polyethylene Glycol versus Oral Sodium Phosphate for Bowel Preparation in Unsedated Colonoscopy

Aim

To identify the most effective laxative for bowel preparation in unsedated colonoscopy.

Methods

Between April 2019 and April 2020, a total of 586 outpatients scheduled for unsedated colonoscopy at the First Hospital of Jilin University (Changchun, China) were randomized into one of two groups, namely, the polyethylene glycol (PEG) group or the oral sodium phosphate solution (OSP) group. The cleaning efficiency and other relevant clinical parameters were compared between the two groups.

Results

Each group consisted of 293 patients. There were no significant differences in gender, body mass index, and history of abdominal surgery between the two groups. There were more cases of laxative intolerance in the PEG group than in the OSP group (7.5% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.05). After tube insertion, we found that the cleaning efficiency of OSP was better than that of PEG (P < 0.05). After cleaning, there was no significant difference in bowel cleanliness between the two groups (P > 0.05). The colonoscopic insertion time of the PEG group was significantly shorter than that of the OSP group (10.0 vs. 12.0 min, P = 0.002), and colonoscopic insertion was more difficult in the OSP group than in the PEG group (P = 0.036). The VAS score of the PEG group patients was significantly lower than that of OSP group patients (4.0 ± 1.3 vs. 5.2 ± 1.7, P ≤ 0.001). There were no significant differences in the cecal intubation rate and the detection rate of polyps and ulcers/erosion between the two groups.

Conclusion

The cleaning efficiency and tolerability of OSP were preferable to those of PEG, but there was no significant difference in bowel cleanliness after washing the colon and suctioning the fluid. Compared with patients of the OSP group, those of the PEG group required a shorter colonoscopic insertion time and reported a more comfortable experience. Therefore, for cases that are tolerant of PEG, PEG is a better choice for unsedated colonoscopy.

Effectiveness of concomitant use of green tea and polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Polyethylene glycol solution (PEG) is widely used for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopies. However, patients often exhibited adverse events as nausea, vomit and distention due to its uncomfortable tastes and potential side affects. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of concomitant use of green tea (GT) with PEG in bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized controlled study. It was conducted at an outpatient setting of colorectal surgery in a tertiary hospital. Patients aged 18 through 80 who were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy between August 2015 and February 2016 were randomly assigned into two groups, admitting either 2 L-PEG solutions with 1 L GT liquids or 2 L-PEG solutions only for bowel preparation. Admitted doses of PEG solutions, taste evaluation, adverse reactions (nausea and vomiting, distention and abdominal pain) were investigated by questionnaires. The bowel cleanliness of each patient was evaluated according to the Aronchick indicators.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients were enrolled in this study (PEG+GT 59, PEG 57). Full compliances were achieved in 93.2% patients of group PEG+GT and 59.6% of group PEG (p < 0.001). Mean Aronchick scale between two groups were 2.0 ± 0.9 versus 2.2 ± 0.7 respectively (PEG+GT vs PEG, p = 0.296). Rates of adverse events as nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain in bowel preparation were significantly different between two groups (55.9% vs 77.2%, p = 0.015 and 13.6% vs 33.3%, p = 0.012). Patients in group PEG+GT who have probabilities to receive repeating colonoscopy had a higher willingness to accept PEG+GT again for bowel preparation, compared with PEG group (94.9% vs 57.9%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant use of green tea and polyethylene glycol may effectively reduce incidence of adverse events, increase compliances, with comparable bowel cleanliness in bowel preparation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was retrospectively registered on Feb 1st, 2019 (ChiCTR1900021178).

The importance of colonoscopy bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal lesions and colorectal cancer prevention

Background and study aims  Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has reduced CRC incidence and mortality and improved prognosis. Optimal bowel preparation and high-quality endoscopic technique facilitate early CRC detection. This review provides a narrative on the clinical importance of bowel preparation for colonoscopy and highlights available bowel preparations. Methods  A PubMed search was conducted through June 2019 to identify studies evaluating clinical outcomes, efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with bowel preparation for CRC screening-related colonoscopy. Results  Selecting the optimal bowel preparation regimen is based on considerations of efficacy, safety, and tolerability, in conjunction with individual patient characteristics and preferences. Available bowel preparations include high-volume (4 L) and low-volume (2 L and 1 L), polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions, sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate/magnesium oxide plus anhydrous citric acid, sodium phosphate tablets, and the over-the-counter preparations magnesium citrate and PEG-3350. These preparations may be administered as a single dose on the same day or evening before, or as two doses administered the same day or evening before/morning of colonoscopy. Ingesting at least half the bowel preparation on the day of colonoscopy (split-dosing) is associated with higher adequate bowel preparation quality versus evening-before dosing (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.9-3.4). Conclusions  High-quality bowel preparation is integral for optimal CRC screening/surveillance by colonoscopy. Over the last 30 years, patients and providers have gained more options for bowel preparation, including low-volume agents with enhanced tolerability and cleansing quality that are equivalent to 4 L preparations. Split-dosing is preferred for achieving a high-quality preparation.

A Randomized Trial Comparing the Bowel Cleansing Efficacy of Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate and Polyethylene Glycol/Bisacodyl (The Bowklean Study)

Bowel cleansing is essential for a successful colonoscopy, but the ideal clearing agent and the volume have yet to be determined. A small-volume cleanser is important for patient compliance. This study aimed to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability of a 300-mL small-volume sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (PSMC) preparation-Bowklean with one 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)/bisacodyl-Klean-Prep/Dulcolax preparation under identical dietary recommendations. This multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, pre-specified noninferiority study enrolled 631 outpatients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy (Bowklean = 316 and Klean-Prep/Dulcolax = 315). After bowel preparation, an independent evaluator blinded to the subject's treatment allocation rated the quality of the colon cleansing. Efficacy was evaluated using the Aronchick Scale and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OPBS). Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events. Tolerability and acceptability were measured via a patient questionnaire. Bowklean was non-interior to Klean-Prep/Dulcolax in overall colon cleansing but was associated with significantly better preparation quality. Notably, Bowklean was associated with significantly greater tolerability and acceptability of bowel preparations than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax. Safety profiles did not differ significantly between the groups. Our data indicate that Bowklean is a more effective and better-tolerated bowel cleansing preparation before colonoscopy than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax. Bowklean may therefore increase positive attitudes toward colonoscopies and participation rates.

Triage for selection to colonoscopy?

Implementation of population screening for colorectal cancer by direct colonoscopy or follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test has challenged the overall capacity of bowel examinations. Certain countries are facing serious colonoscopy capacity constraints, which have led to waiting lists and long-time latency of follow-up examinations. Various options for improvement are considered, including increased cut-off values of the fecal blood tests. Results from major clinical studies of blood-based, cancer-associated biomarkers have led to focus, however, on a triage concept for improved selection to colonoscopy. The triage test may include subject age, concentration of hemoglobin in a feces test and a combination of certain blood-based cancer associated biomarkers. Recent results have indicated that triage may reduce the requirements for colonoscopy by around 30%. Such results may be advantageous for the capacity, the heath budgets and in particular, the subjects, who do not need an unnecessary, unpleasant and risk-associated bowel examination.