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

Feasibility and Colonoscopy Yield Using the Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Latin America Country

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is not widely practiced in Latin America and the results of regional studies may help overcome barriers for implementation of national screening programs. We aimed to describe the implementation and findings of a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based program in Brazil.

METHODS

In a prospective population-based study, asymptomatic individuals (50-75 years old) from Sao Paulo city were invited to undergo FIT for CRC screening. Participants with positive FIT (≥10 μg Hb/g feces) were referred for colonoscopy. Subjects were classified into groups according to the presence of CRC, precursor lesions, and other benign findings, possibly related to bleeding.

RESULTS

Of a total of 9881 subjects, 7.8% had positive FIT and colonoscopy compliance was 68.9% (n = 535). Boston scale was considered adequate in 99% and cecal intubation rate was 99.4%. CRC was diagnosed in 5.9% of the cases, adenoma in 63.2%, advanced adenoma in 31.4%, and advanced neoplasia in 33.0%. Age was positively associated with CRC (P = .03). Higher FIT concentrations were associated with increased detection of CRC (P < .008), advanced adenoma (P < .001), and advanced neoplasia (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a FIT-based CRC screening program was feasible in a low-resource setting, and there was a high yield for neoplasia in individuals with a positive FIT. This approach could be used as a model to plan and disseminate organized CRC screening more broadly in Brazil and Latin America.

Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have decreased through regular screening colonoscopy, surveillance, and endoscopic treatment. However, CRC can still be diagnosed after negative colonoscopy. Such CRC is called interval CRC and accounts for 1.8-9.0% of all CRC cases. Most cases of interval CRC originate from missed lesions and incompletely resected lesions. Interval CRC can be minimized by improving the quality of colonoscopy. This has led to a growing interest in and demand for high-quality colonoscopy. It is important to reduce the risk of CRC and its associated mortality by improving the quality of colonoscopy. In this review article, we provide an overview of colonoscopy quality indicators, including bowel preparation adequacy, the cecal intubation rate, the adenoma detection rate, the colonoscopy withdrawal time, appropriate polypectomy, and complication of the procedure. Because colonoscopy is a highly endoscopist-dependent procedure, colonoscopists should be well-acquainted with quality indicators and strive to apply them in daily clinical practice for the prevention of CRC.

Efficacy of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate versus 4 L polyethylene glycol in split-dose for colonoscopy cleansing in out and inpatient: A multicentre, randomized trial (OVER 2019)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for colonoscopy quality. A novel 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1 L PEG+ASC) solution has been recently introduced. Nevertheless, the efficacy of 1 L PEG+ASC as compared to that of high-volume bowel preparation in both inpatients and outpatients is still unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This single-blinded, non-inferiority study randomized patients undergoing colonoscopy to receive split-dose 1 L PEG+ASC or 4 L PEG. The primary endpoint was the overall cleansing success. Secondary endpoints were excellent cleansing and high-quality cleansing of the right colon, as well as lesions detection rate, patient compliance, tolerability and safety.

RESULTS

Overall, 478 patients were randomized to 1 L PEG+ASC (N = 236) or 4 L PEG (N = 242). The 1 L PEG+ASC showed higher cleansing success rate (91.8% vs 83.6%; P=0.01) and a high-quality cleansing of the right colon (52.3% and 38.5%; P=0.004) compared to 4 L PEG. Moreover, 1 L PEG+ASC achieved a higher cleansing success in out-patients (96.3%% vs 88.6%; P=0.018), and a similar success rate in the in-patients (84.7% vs 76.7%; P=0.18). Adenoma detection rate, tolerability and incidence of adverse events were comparable between preparations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1 L PEG+ASC showed higher efficacy in achieving adequate colon cleansing compared with 4 L PEG, particularly in the right colon. No differences in the tolerability and safety were detected.

An algorithm-based active cleansing protocol can reduce the bowel preparation time for screening colonoscopy: A propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Methods that minimize the time for on-site bowel preparation before colonoscopy are needed. We prospectively validated that a novel algorithm-based active cleansing (ABAC) protocol could reduce the time for preparation compared with the conventional method.

METHODS

This was an open-label, multicenter, prospective comparative study from April to October 2021. The study compared the bowel preparation time for colonoscopy between patients instructed with the ABAC protocol and control groups. Patients in the ABAC protocol group as well as the control group were administered 2000 mL of polyethylene glycol (PEG) within 2 hours. After the first two hours, patients in the protocol group voluntarily took 300 ml of the solution without the instruction of nursing staff depending on the number of defecations in the first 2 hours. The intervention and control groups were adjusted for background characteristics by propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

After adjustment by PSM, 174 patients in each of the two groups were included in the final analysis. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the preparation time was significantly shorter in the intervention group than that in the control group (126.3 ± 32.7 min vs. 144.9 ± 39.9 min, P = 0.018). The proportion of additional PEG intake was significantly higher in the intervention group (16 [9.2%] vs. 6 [3.4%], P = 0.047). The number of defecations was also higher in the intervention group than in the control group (7.8 ± 2.5 vs. 6.3 ± 2.2, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Simple active instruction protocol is effective to reduce on-site bowel preparation time and nursing staff labor for colonoscopy.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of an oral sulfate solution and 3-L polyethylene glycol on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a phase III multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adequate bowel preparation is crucial for clear mucosal visualization during colonoscopy. We aimed to comprehensively compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) and 3-L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

METHODS

This randomized, active-controlled, noninferiority study was performed in 10 medical centers. Eligible subjects were enrolled to receive OSS or 3-L PEG in a split-dose regimen. The quality of bowel preparation, adverse reactions, and acceptability were evaluated. The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Safety was evaluated by adverse reactions. The study population was divided into the full analysis set (FAS), the safety set, the modified FAS (mFAS), and the per-protocol set (PPS).

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-eight potentially eligible subjects were enrolled. Three hundred forty-four subjects were included in the FAS and safety set, 340 subjects were included in the mFAS, and 328 subjects were included in the PPS. Adequate bowel preparation of the OSS was not inferior to 3-L PEG in the mFAS (98.22% vs 97.66%) and the PPS (98.17% vs 98.78%). There was no significant difference in acceptability between the 2 groups (94.74% vs 94.80%, P = .9798). Overall adverse reactions were similar (50.88% vs 44.51%, P = .2370) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The split-dose OSS regimen was not inferior to the split-dose 3-L PEG regimen for the quality of bowel preparation in a Chinese adult population. The safety and acceptability of the 2 groups were similar. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05465889.).

A comprehensive intervention to enhance inpatient colon preparation quality for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Adequate colon preparation is a critical component of high-quality colonoscopy especially for inpatients undergoing colonoscopy for acute indications. Inpatient colonoscopy has a high incidence of inadequate preparations. We report implementation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention to improve inpatient colonoscopy preparations.

METHODS

Bowel preparation quality from inpatient colonoscopies performed for the 12 months prior to the comprehensive intervention were compared to colonoscopies performed for 12 months following the intervention. The intervention had multiple components including: 1) EMR-based colonoscopy preparation order set; 2) automated EMR alerts prompting nursing assessment of preparation progress; 3) standardized nursing charting processes for tracking preparation progress; and 4) standardized education for nursing staff and ordering providers on adequate colon preparation, assessment of colon preparation quality, and use of the above processes; and print and video patient education materials.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-eight inpatient colonoscopies were performed in the preintervention assessment period and 163 colonoscopies in the postintervention period. Median preintervention Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) was 6 and 26% of patients had inadequate colon preparation. Median postintervention BBPS was 8 with 16% inadequate colon preparation (P=0.016). The postintervention group had less ASA class I patients and used a lower dose of fentanyl than the preintervention group. There were no other significant differences between the pre- and postintervention groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a comprehensive colon preparation quality intervention resulted in significantly improved inpatient colon preparation quality and decreased frequency of inadequate preparations. The intervention consisting of an EMR-based order-set, nursing alerts and charting process, and patient education materials is continually being refined.

Prepackaged formula low-residue diet vs. self-prepared low-residue diet before colonoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background and aims

Compared with self-prepared LRD, a prepackaged low-residue diet (LRD) can improve patient compliance, but whether it can further improve the quality of bowel preparation is uncertain. The study aimed to compare the application of the prepackaged formula LRD with self-prepared LRD in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Methods

A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted in 15 centers. The eligible subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the formula LRD group and the self-prepared LRD group. On the day before the colonoscopy, subjects in the self-prepared LRD group were instructed to consume a restricted LRD prepared by themselves, while subjects in the formula LRD group were given six bags of prepackaged formula LRD and instructed to consume them according to their individual need. The primary outcome was an adequate bowel preparation rate. Secondary outcomes mainly included Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores, dietary restriction compliance rate, tolerance, satisfaction, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and adverse reactions. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT03943758.

Results

A total of 550 subjects were recruited. Compared with the self-prepared LRD group, the formula LRD group showed a higher adequate bowel preparation rate (94.5 vs. 80.4%; P < 0.01), BBPS scores (7.87 ± 1.13 vs. 6.75 ± 1.47; P < 0.01), dietary compliance rate (92.4 vs. 78.9%; P < 0.01), tolerance (P < 0.01 in degree of hunger, intensity of physical strength, and negative influence on daily activities), satisfaction (8.56 ± 1.61 vs. 7.20 ± 2.02; P < 0.01), and ADR (25.6 vs. 16.0%; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in adverse reactions.

Conclusion

Compared with self-prepared LRD, the formula LRD showed similar safety and higher bowel preparation quality, compliance, and tolerance in bowel preparation. More formula LRDs could be designed according to different dietary habits and ethnic populations, and further researches are warranted to confirm their effect.

Clinical trial registration

https://register.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT03943758.

A multicenter randomized phase 4 trial comparing sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The PRECOL trial

Background

Adequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is crucial. Unfortunately, 25% of colonoscopies have inadequate bowel cleansing. From a patient perspective, bowel preparation is the main obstacle to colonoscopy. Several low-volume bowel preparations have been formulated to provide more tolerable purgative solutions without loss of efficacy.

Objectives

Investigate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Sodium Picosulphate plus Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) vs. Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid (PEG-ASC) solutions in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy.

Materials and methods

In this phase 4, randomized, multicenter, two-arm trial, adult outpatients received either SPMC or PEG-ASC for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The primary aims were quality of bowel cleansing (primary endpoint scored according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale) and patient acceptance (measured with six visual analogue scales). The study was open for treatment assignment and blinded for primary endpoint assessment. This was done independently with videotaped colonoscopies reviewed by two endoscopists unaware of study arms. A sample size of 525 patients was calculated to recognize a difference of 10% in the proportion of successes between the arms with a two-sided alpha error of 0.05 and 90% statistical power.

Results

Overall 550 subjects (279 assigned to PEG-ASC and 271 assigned to SPMC) represented the analysis population. There was no statistically significant difference in success rate according to BBPS: 94.4% with PEG-ASC and 95.7% with SPMC (P = 0.49). Acceptance and willing to repeat colonoscopy were significantly better for SPMC with all the scales. Compliance was less than full in 6.6 and 9.9% of cases with PEG-ASC and SPMC, respectively (P = 0.17). Nausea and meteorism were significantly more bothersome with PEG-ASC than SPMC. There were no serious adverse events in either group.

Conclusion

SPMC and PEG-ASC are not different in terms of efficacy, but SPMC is better tolerated than PEG-ASC. SPMC could be an alternative to low-volume PEG based purgative solutions for bowel preparation.

Clinical trial registration

[ClinicalTrials.gov], Identifier [NCT01649674 and EudraCT 2011-000587-10].

Circulation tumour DNA in predicting recurrence and prognosis in operable colorectal cancer patients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Selecting the appropriate patient for further treatment after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) can improve the patient's prognosis. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) has the potential to predict recurrence and prognosis after CRC surgery and ACT, but the results are still inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

As the completed studies have small sample sizes and different experimental methods, a meta-analysis was conducted to assess the ctDNA on recurrence and prognosis after CRC surgery and ACT.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched for potentially eligible studies published up to 6 March 2022. Pooled relative risk (RR) and pooled hazard ratio (HR) were calculated to evaluate recurrence and the prognosis of recurrence-free survival (RFS) following CRC surgery and ACT.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies published between 2014 and 2022 included 2393 patients, and 7189 serum samples were eventually included in the meta-analysis. The pooled revealed that ctDNA-positive patients were at high risk of recurrence after CRC surgery (RR = 4.43, 95% CI: 3.58-5.48, p < .05) and had a poorer prognosis for RFS (HR = 7.26, 95% CI: 5.48-9.62, p < .05). The pooled revealed that ctDNA-positive patients were at high risk of recurrence after ACT (RR = 5.77 95% CI: 4.33-7.69, p < .05) and had a poorer prognosis for RFS (HR = 13.96, 95% CI: 8.71-22.4, p < .05).

CONCLUSION

ctDNA-positive patients were at a high risk of recurrence after CRC surgery and ACT and had a poorer prognosis. Hence, ctDNA-positive patients required close follow-up and further treatments.

Existing Bowel Preparation Quality Scales Are Reliable in the Setting of Centralized Endoscopy Reading

BACKGROUND

Development of bowel preparation products has been based upon colon cleansing rating by a local endoscopist. It is unclear how bowel preparation scales perform when centrally evaluated.

AIMS

To evaluate the reliability of bowel preparation quality scales when assessed by central readers.

METHODS

Four central readers evaluated 52 videos in triplicate, 2 weeks apart, during the entire endoscopic procedure (insertion/withdrawal of the colonoscope) and exclusively on colonoscope withdrawal using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), Chicago Bowel Preparation scale, Harefield Cleansing Scale, Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPQS), Aronchick score, a visual analogue scale, and additional items proposed in a modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness process. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) for inter-rater reliability of the quality scales ranged from 0.51 to 0.65 (consistent with moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability) during the entire procedure. Corresponding intraclass correlation coefficients for intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 (consistent with substantial intra-rater reliability). Reliability was highest in the right colon and lowest in the left colon. No differences were observed in reliability when assessed for the procedure overall (insertion/withdrawal) relative to assessment on withdrawal alone.

CONCLUSION

All five bowel preparation quality scales had moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability. Panelists considered the Aronchick score too simplistic for clinical trials and recognized that assessment of residual fluid in the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale was not amenable to central assessment.

Endoscopic Balloon Dilation of Strictures: Techniques, Short- and Long-Term Outcomes, and Complications

EBD is safe and effective for the treatment of strictures. Here we describe the technique of endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) of strictures including preprocedure considerations, indications, contraindications, and postprocedure complications. The short- and long-term outcomes of EBD including factors associated with improved outcomes are also discussed.

Multi-center study of residual gastric volume and bowel preparation after the usage of 1L and 2L polyethylene glycol in Korea

BACKGROUND

In colonoscopy, good bowel preparation is an important factor in determining the quality of colonoscopy. However, an increase in residual gastric volume (RGV) can lead to a higher risk of aspiration pneumonia. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the factors related to an increase in RGV with the usage of 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG).

METHODS

We prospectively analyzed 268 patients who underwent both gastroscopy and colonoscopy at 2 hospitals from May to October 2021. Bowel preparation was performed using 1L in 127 patients (47.4%) and 2L PEG in 141 patients (52.6%). We investigated the time taken for bowel preparation solutions, the last water intake, total water intake, and RGV, and conducted a survey on taking compliance and satisfaction.

RESULTS

The level of RGV was significantly increased in the 1L PEG group when compared to the 2L PEG group (1L, 52.26 ± 65.33 vs 2L, 23.55 ± 22.99; P < .001). There was no difference between the 2 groups in the degree of bowel preparation, but there were more bubbles formed in the 1L group (1L, 1.91 ± 2.74 vs 2L, 1.10 ± 2.02; P = .007). In the case of RGV ≥ 50 mL, in multivariate analysis, the risk was higher in water intake within 5 hours and the patients who think the dose is too high (all P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Therefore, since RGV is higher in 1L PEG than in 2L PEG, it is necessary to be careful not to take water for at least 5 hours before the test.

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.

Single-Day Low-Residue Diet Prior to Colonoscopy Demonstrates Improved Bowel Preparation Quality and Patient Tolerance over Clear Liquid Diet: A Randomized, Single-Blinded, Dual-Center Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients often refer to bowel preparation and associated dietary restrictions as the greatest deterrents to having a colonoscopy completed or performed. Large studies comparing a low-residue diet (LRD) and a clear liquid diet (CLD) are still limited. The aim of this study is to compare LRD and CLD with regard to bowel preparation quality, tolerance, and satisfaction among a diverse patient population.

METHODS

This study is a dual-center, randomized, single-blinded, prospective trial involving adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at the University of California Irvine Medical Center and an affiliated Veterans Administration hospital. Patients were randomized to consume either a CLD or a planned LRD for the full day prior to colonoscopy. Both groups consumed 4L split-dosed PEG-ELS. The adequacy of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS). Adequate preparation was defined as a BBPS ≥ 6 with no individual segment less than a score of 2. Hunger and fatigue pre - and post-procedure were graded on a ten-point scale. Nausea, vomiting, bloating, abdominal cramping, overall discomfort, satisfaction with the diet, willingness to repeat the same preparation and overall experience were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 195 subjects who underwent colonoscopy from October 2014 to October 2017 were included. The mean BBPS for the LRD and CLD groups was 8.38 and 7.93, respectively (p = 0.1). There was a significantly higher number of adequate preparations in the LRD group compared to CLD (p = 0.05). Evening hunger scores just before starting the bowel preparation were significantly lower in the LRD than the CLD group, 2.81 versus 5.97, respectively (p = 0.006). Subjects in the LRD group showed significantly less nausea (p = 0.047) and bloating (p = 0.04). Symptom scores for vomiting, abdominal cramping, and overall discomfort were similar between the groups. Satisfaction with diet was significantly higher in the LRD group than CLD, 72% versus 37.66%, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall colonoscopy experience and the satisfaction with the preparation itself were also better reported in the LRD group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study, which included a diverse group of patients, demonstrated that patients using a LRD before colonoscopy achieve a bowel preparation quality that is superior to patients on a CLD restriction. This study shows that a low-residue diet improves patient satisfaction and results in significantly better tolerability of bowel preparation. As a less restrictive dietary regimen, the low-residue diet may help improve patient participation in colorectal cancer screening programs.

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy After Failed Bowel Preparation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Failed bowel preparation for colonoscopy occurs commonly, but the optimal regimen for the subsequent attempt is unknown. High-volume preparations often are used but are not well studied. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 2 regimens for use after failed bowel preparation.

METHODS

A multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients who previously failed bowel preparation despite adequate compliance. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 split polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens, preceded by 15 mg bisacodyl: PEG 2 L the evening before and 2 L the day of colonoscopy (PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl), or 4 L and 2 L (PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl). All patients followed a low-fiber diet on both the third and second day before the procedure, followed by a clear fluid diet the day before and the morning of the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score of 6 or higher, with all segment scores of 2 or higher. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated lesion detection, cecal intubation rate, tolerability, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 196 subjects were randomized at 4 academic centers in Canada (mean age, 60.7 y; SD, 11.4 y; 44.9% were women). There were no significant differences between the PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl and the PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl groups in achieving adequate bowel preparation (91.2% vs 87.6%; P = .44). There were no significant differences with regard to mean adenoma detection rate (37.4% vs 31.5%; P = .41), advanced adenoma detection rate (18.7% vs 11.2%; P = .16), sessile serrated lesion detection (8.8% vs 5.6%; P = .41), and cecal intubation rate (96.7% vs 92.1%; P = .19). The 2 regimens were similarly well tolerated, but PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl was associated with a higher willingness to repeat the bowel preparation (91.2% vs 66.2%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Split-dose 4 L-PEG with 15 mg bisacodyl, along with dietary restrictions, has similar efficacy as a higher-volume preparation, and should be considered for patients who previously failed bowel preparation (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02976805).

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality

Continuous measurement of quality indicators (QIs) should be a routine part of colonoscopy, as a wide variation still exists in the performance and quality levels of colonoscopy in Korea. Among the many QIs of colonoscopy, the adenoma detection rate, average withdrawal time, bowel preparation adequacy, and cecal intubation rate should be monitored in daily clinical practice to improve the quality of the procedure. The adenoma detection rate is the best indicator of the quality of colonoscopy; however, it has many limitations for universal use in daily practice. With the development of natural language processing, the adenoma detection rate is expected to become more effective and useful. It is important that colonoscopists do not strictly and mechanically maintain an average withdrawal time of 6 minutes but instead perform careful colonoscopy to maximally expose the colonic mucosa with a withdrawal time of at least 6 minutes. To achieve adequate bowel preparation, documentation of bowel preparation with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) should be a routine part of colonoscopy. When colonoscopists routinely followed the bowel preparation protocols, ≥85% of outpatient screening colonoscopies had a BBPS score of ≥6. In addition, the cecal intubation rate should be ≥95% of all screening colonoscopies. The first step in improving colonoscopy quality in Korea is to apply these key performance measurements in clinical practice.

Serum electrolytes, osmolality, and cleansing quality after bowel prep for colonoscopy with a PEG solution containing ascorbic acid and electrolytes

BACKGROUND

The cleansing procedure with PEG 3350 + ascorbic acid (PEG + Asc; Moviprep®) requires the additional ingestion of clear liquids. We aimed to determine the effects on serum electrolytes, osmolality and cleansing quality, and in a prospective "real world" trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients underwent a standardized split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy with PEG + Asc. Serum electrolytes and osmolality were measured before and after the prep procedure. The volume of prep solution (PA) and additional clear liquid (CL) was recorded. Prep quality was assessed using the Ottawa Bowel Prep Grading Scale (OBPS). The primary outcome measures were changes of serum electrolytes and osmolality during the cleansing procedure. A secondary end point was the OPBS.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-one of 219 patients entered the per protocol analysis. Prep quality was considered excellent in 57.6%, moderate in 20.9%, and insufficient in 21.5%. The number of patients with hyponatremia increased from 12 (6.3%) before to 25 (13.2%) after the prep procedure. Mean sodium concentration did not change significantly. The volume of CL correlated inversely with Na⁺ concentration (r =  - 0.409, p < 0.01) and a worse OBPS (r = 0.198, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel preparation with PEG-Asc in clinical routine is generally safe, but patients should be advised not to drink more than 2 l of clear liquid because of imminent electrolyte disturbances. Additionally, the quality of cleansing either remains unchanged or may even worsen.

Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopist recommendations regarding a repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel cleanliness have not been fully described. Our aim was to evaluate the timing of recommendations for repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel preparation using a large, national colonoscopy registry.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of all outpatient screening and surveillance colonoscopies among adults ages 50 to 75 reported in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium from 2011 to 2018. The primary outcome was a recommendation to repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were recommendations based on indication of colonoscopy and colonoscopy findings and predictors of a recommendation to follow-up within 1 year.

RESULTS

There were 260,314 colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation performed at 672 different sites by 4001 endoscopists. Of these, 31.9% contained a recommendation for follow-up within 1 year. This did not differ meaningfully by examination indication. The severity of colonoscopy findings influenced the recommendations for follow-up (within 1 year in 84.0% of cases with adenocarcinoma, 51.8% with any advanced lesion, and 23.2% with 1-2 small adenomas). Younger age, more severe pathology, location in the Northeast, and performance by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate ≥25% were associated with recommendations for follow-up within 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Only some colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation are recommended to be repeated within 1 year, which may have implications for potential missed lesions. Further understanding of reasons driving recommendations is an important next step to improving guideline-concordant colonoscopy practice.

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.

Bowel cleansing efficacy for colonoscopy: prospective, randomized comparative study of same-day dosing with 1-L and 2-L PEG + ascorbate

Background and study aims  Polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparations are effective but associated with high ingestion volume. In this study, 1-L PEG and 2-L PEG preparations were compared in a randomized, colonoscopist-blinded, single-center trial. Patients and methods  Patients were aged > 18 years, required colonoscopy, and provided informed consent. Randomization was 1:1 to 1-L PEG or 2-L PEG, based on hospital identification number (odd or even). Preparations were administered using same-day dosing adjusted for colonoscopy start time. The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (no segment scored < 2). Results  A total of 852 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, significantly more patients had diabetes in the 2-L PEG arm, resulting in the creation of the modified-ITT population (mITT) that excluded diabetic patients to correct the imbalance (1-L PEG, n = 239; 2-L PEG, n = 238). In the mITT, there was no significant difference in successful cleansing between 1-L PEG and 2-L PEG (88.3 % vs. 82.4 %; P  = 0.067). Excellent cleansing (BBPS 7-9; no segment < 2) was significantly improved with 1-L PEG (60.7 % vs. 50.4 %; P  < 0.024), as were mean scores in the right and left colon (right: 2.47 vs. 2.30; P  < 0.008; left: 2.55 vs. 2.39; P  = 0.008). Adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and none resulted in discontinuation. Rates of nausea and vomiting were significantly higher with 1-L PEG, but that did not affect successful cleansing. Conclusions  The lower-volume 1-L PEG was associated with higher levels of excellent bowel cleansing and greater mean segmental scores on the BBPS than 2-L PEG.

The unmet needs for identifying the ideal bowel preparation

Colonoscopy, since it was first employed over 60 years ago, is now the gold standard method for visualizing the mucosa of the colon, but should be of good quality. Many factors affect quality, including the type of health service organization, type of facility, staff, equipment, patient characteristics, and bowel preparation (BP). The adequacy of bowel cleansing is critical, but, unfortunately, may be inadequate in up to one‐third of procedures. The current article will present and discuss the main BPs and their drawbacks, which include patient‐dependent and procedure‐dependent factors. Cleansing quality depends on the ease/complexity of solution preparation, volume, taste, and timing of consumption. Consequently, important positive factors include simple instructions, easy preparation of the solution, low volume, pleasant taste, short drinking time (e.g. <30 min), and splitting the dose between the evening before and the morning of the colonoscopy (or even better, only one dose in the early morning to avoid night‐time problems), and short onset of action. The BP solution must also be safe with negligible side effects. Furthermore, a positive experience supports patient willingness to repeat the procedure.

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.

Comparable quality of bowel preparation with single-day versus three-day low-residue diet: Randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is controversy about the length of low-residue diet (LRD) for colonoscopy preparation. The aim of the study was to compare one-day vs. three-day LRD associated to standard laxative treatment for achieving an adequate colonoscopy preparation in average risk subjects with positive fecal immunochemical test undergoing screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

A non-inferiority, randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was performed in the setting of average risk colorectal cancer screening program. Participants were randomized to receive 1-day vs. 3-day LRD in addition to standard polyethilenglicol treatment. Adequacy of preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Primary outcome was achieving a BBPS ≥ 2 in all colon segments. Analysis was performed for a non-inferiority margin of 5%, a 95% statistical power and one-sided 0.05 significance level.

RESULTS

A total of 855 patients were randomized. Adequate bowel preparation was similar between groups: 97.9% of patients in the 1-day LRD group vs 96.9% in the 3-day LRD group achieved the primary outcome (P-value for non-inferiority < 0.001). The percentage of patients with BBPS scores ≥ 8 was superior in the 1-day LRD group (254 vs 221 in the 3-day LRD group, P = 0.032). The 1-day regimen was better tolerated than the 3-day diet. 47.7% (vs 28.7%, P < 0.05) of patients rated the 1-day LRD as very easy to follow.

CONCLUSION

The 1-day LRD is non-inferior to 3-day LRD for achieving an adequate colon cleansing before average risk screening colonoscopy and it is better tolerated.

Bowel-cleansing efficacy of the 1L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 (PLENVU) in patient subgroups in two phase III trials

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy is essential for visualization of the colonic mucosa to maximize adenoma and polyp detection. The risk of inadequate bowel cleansing is heightened if the patient is older, male, overweight, and has comorbidities, such as diabetes. This post hoc analysis of the combined MORA and NOCT clinical trials explores the efficacy of evening/morning split-dose regimens of NER1006 (PLENVU^®, Norgine Ltd), a 1-liter polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation, to evaluate its bowel-cleansing efficacy in patients at risk for inadequate cleansing.

METHODS

Patients requiring colonoscopy were randomized to receive evening/morning split-dosing of either NER1006, 2-liter (2L) PEG and ascorbate, or oral sulfate solution (OSS). Bowel-cleansing efficacy was assessed by treatment-blinded central readers using the validated Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS).

RESULTS

Split-dose NER1006 was associated with high levels of cleansing, ranging between 87.0% and 94.0% across all patient subtypes (n = 551), including patients with obesity or diabetes. However, patients aged >65 years and <45 years showed significantly greater rates of successful cleansing than patients aged 45-65 years (94.0% versus 94.2% versus 87.0%, p = 0.002). The high-risk patient subgroup, which included obese males aged ⩾60 years, had significantly improved overall and high-quality bowel-cleansing success rates of 100% (33/33) and 72.7% (27/33) on the HCS with NER1006, compared with 86.7% (26/30) and 50% (15/30) with the comparator solutions (p = 0.015 and p = 0.033, respectively). In this high-risk subgroup, adenoma detection was greater per patient receiving NER1006 versus the comparator group (1.82 versus 0.93, p = 0.041). NER1006 was the only treatment that enabled the detection of patients with ⩾5 adenomas [9.1% (3/33) versus 0/30, p = 0.047].

CONCLUSION

NER1006 effectively cleansed a broad range of patients and offered superior bowel cleansing versus 2LPEG/OSS in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Future research should establish whether more effective cleansing also enables improved adenoma detection.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

A low-volume bowel preparation solution to better detect lesions associated with colorectal cancer during colonoscopyColorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world. Obese men over the age of 65 years are at particularly increased risk of developing CRC. If the changes in their large intestine (colon) could be seen more clearly during a colonoscopy (where a small camera is inserted via the anus to examine the bowels from the inside), patients who need treatment would be diagnosed earlier, thus improving their chances of survival. In this paper we discuss the use of a bowel preparation solution that is more convenient for patients (less to drink) but also cleans bowels more effectively, meaning more lesions are detected than when other solutions are used. This improved cleansing, and thus better visualization, occurred in a range of patients, including those at higher risk of CRC, such as older, overweight men.

Adequacy of Anesthesia Guidance for Colonoscopy Procedures

In patients undergoing colonoscopy procedures (CPs), inadequate dosing of hypnotic drugs (HD) and opioid analgesics (OA) during intravenous sedoanalgesia (ISA) may lead to intraprocedural awareness with recall (IAwR), intraprocedural (IPP) and postprocedural pain (PPP), as well as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the titration of HD and OA based on the observance of changing values of state entropy (SE) and surgical pleth index (SPI) (adequacy of anesthesia-AoA), state entropy alone, or standard practice may reduce the number of adverse events. One hundred and fifty-eight patients were included in the final analysis. The rate of IAwR and IPP was statistically more frequent in patients from the C group in comparison with the AoA and SE groups (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively). In turn, the rate of PPP, PONV, and patients' and operators' satisfaction with ISA between groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Changes in hemodynamic parameters, demand for HD, and OA were statistically significant, but of no clinical value. In patients undergoing CPs under ISA using propofol and FNT, as compared to standard practice, intraprocedural SE monitoring reduced the rate of IAwR and IPP, with no influence on the rate of PPP, PONV, or patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction. AoA guidance on propofol and FNT titration, as compared to SE monitoring only, did not reduce the occurrence of the aforementioned studied parameters, imposing an unnecessary extra cost.

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.

Recent Advances in Colonic Preparation for an Accurate Colonoscopy - How to Improve Our Practice to Meet the Quality Criteria

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a major problem of global health. Screening colonoscopy is the gold standard in detection of CRC. A quality colonoscopy needs good indication, adequate bowel preparation, adequate examination time (30 to 45 minutes), a minimum 6 minutes time for mucosal examination during colonoscopy descent, a good centre adenoma detection rate. In 28-33% of the colonoscopies, the bowel preparation is unsatisfactory which leads to several hidden costs including the rise of preventable and treatable death rate regarding colorectal carcinoma. The ESGE (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) recommends a maximum of 10% poor preparations, threshold that is diffi cult to reach in many centres. Newer low-volume laxative regimens for bowel cleansing are better in the fi elds of compliance and tolerability than the classic 4L PEG with 2L PEG-CS (Clensia ®) being one of the new promising low-volume formulas. The low fi bre diet is now preferred due to better compliance and tolerability.

Colorectal Cancer Screening for the Serrated Pathway

Serrated polyps are classified into hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated adenomas/polyps, and traditional serrated adenomas. Although all serrated polyps share characteristic colonic crypts serrations, distinguishing hyperplastic polyps from sessile serrated adenomas/polyps is challenging. Traditional serrated adenomas are cytologically dysplastic lesions; sessile serrated adenomas/polyps develop cytologic dysplasia as they progress to colorectal cancer. A flat and pale appearance of serrated polyps may make detection difficult. Endoscopic mucosal resection has higher rates of complete resection. Close surveillance is recommended for sessile serrated adenomas/polyps, sessile serrated adenomas/polyp with dysplasia, hyperplastic polyps ≥10 mm, and traditional serrated adenomas.

Multidirectional Colonoscopy Quality Improvement Increases Adenoma Detection Rate: Results of the Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center Colonoscopy Quality Upgrade Project (Gangnam-CUP)

BACKGROUND

To prevent colorectal cancer, high-quality colonoscopy is advocated, undertaken by endoscopists with high adenoma detection rates (ADRs). Despite reports that various factors may impact ADRs, the significance of such factors is still unclear.

AIMS

The analysis was aimed at quality-oriented interventions for boosting ADRs.

METHODS

Study enrollees were adults subjected to screening colonoscopy between September 2013 and August 2016 at the Gangnam Center of Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System. The investigation entailed six periods (P1-6) of 6 months each, during which serial multidirectional quality improvement efforts were instituted. In particular, we sought to further educate endoscopists, provide feedback on individual ADRs, and introduce a split-dose regimen, gauging results via the Boston Bowel Preparation Score. Changes in polyp detection rates (PDRs) and ADRs were then analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 13,430 colonoscopies were undertaken by 15 experienced endoscopists. Overall, the ADR increased from 45.6% (P1) to 48.2% (P6, p < 0.001). The PDR, ADR, and advanced adenoma detection rate (AdvADR) showed the greatest increases between P3 and P4 [PDR 67.8% → 71.2% (p < 0.001); ADR 44.1% → 47.7% (p = 0.001); AdvADR 2.3% → 3.3% (p = 0.028)] in keeping with the introduction of a split-dose regimen. The sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (SSADR) increased substantially from 2.1% (P1) to 7.9% (P6, p < 0.001), with the largest gain between P1 and P2, just after education (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Successful quality improvement in colonoscopy was achieved through comprehensive multidirectional efforts in education, feedback, and enhanced bowel preparation. Achieving high-level bowel preparation was paramount in ADR improvement. The SSADR was improved through education.

Determination of the Effectiveness of Informing With the Guidance of an Education Booklet in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy-A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of precolonoscopy information with the guidance of an education booklet on anxiety and bowel preparation adequacy in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled study.

METHODS

The education group was informed face to face by the researcher with the guidance of the colonoscopy education booklet and provided the education booklet. The control group received usual care.

FINDINGS

The mean state and trait anxiety scores of the patients in the education group were found to be significantly lower than the control group. In the education group, the bowel preparation adequacy was determined to be higher compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Informing patients with the guidance of the education booklet before the colonoscopy decreased patients' state and trait anxiety levels and increased their bowel preparation adequacy.

[Optimal Laxatives for Oral Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation: from High-volume to Novel Low-volume Solutions]

Optimal bowel preparation is essential for a more accurate, comfortable, and safe colonoscopy. The majority of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers can be explained by procedural factors, mainly missed polyps or inadequate examination. Therefore the most important goal of optimal bowel preparation is to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. Although adequate preparation should be achieved in 85-90% or more of all colonoscopy as a quality indicator, unfortunately 20-30% shows inadequate preparation. Laxatives for oral colonoscopy bowel preparation can be classified into polyethylene glycol (PEG)-electrolyte lavage solution, osmotic laxatives, stimulant laxatives, and divided into high-volume solution (≥3 L) and low-volume solution (<3 L). The updated 2019 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline is broadly similar to the 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommendations and reaffirms the importance of split-dosing. However, new ESGE guideline, unlike the 2014 ASGE recommendation, suggests the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG based agents that have been clinically validated for most outpatient scenarios. For effective, safe, and highly adherent bowel preparation, physicians who prescribe and implement colonoscopy should properly know the advantages and limitations, the dosing, and the timing of regimens. Recently many studies have attempted to find the most ideal regimens, and more convenient, effective, and safe regimens have been developed by reducing the dosing volume and improving the taste. The high tolerability and acceptability of the new low-volume regimens suggest us how we should use it to increase the participation of the national colorectal cancer screening program.

The advantage of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution combined with lactulose in patients with long interval preparation-to-colonoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The main aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) solution combined with lactulose in bowel preparation to find a new method for colonoscopy preparation to improve the quality of colonoscopy in patients with long interval preparation-to-colonoscopy (P-C).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded and placebo-controlled study was conducted. Three hundred sixty patients who were scheduled for colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. They were randomly divided into the PEG-lactulose group and the PEG-placebo group with 180 patients per arm. Two of the most common methods for estimating the quality of bowel preparation were the use of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and the measurement of the Bubble Scale and adenoma detection rate (ADR) as a secondary outcome of observation.

RESULTS

The PEG-lactulose group had a significant improvement in the quality of bowel preparation compared with the PEG-placebo group including colon cleanliness in interval P-C at 8 and 9 h (p<0.05) and bubble elimination in interval P-C at 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 h (p<0.05). Compared with the PEG-placebo group, the ADR (23.3% vs. 15.0%, p<0.05) and the size (≤5 mm) of the adenoma (45.2% vs. 18.5%, p<0.05) increased in the PEG-lactulose group, and there were significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

PEG solution combined with lactulose can improve the quality of colonoscopy in patients with long interval P-C to allow the patients to select more flexible colonoscopy time. It is worth further popularizing in clinical practice.

Novel sulfate tablet PBK-1701TC versus oral sulfate solution for colon cleansing: A randomized phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

PBK-1701TC is a novel sulfate tablet-based that contains 320 mg of simethicone and delivers 90% of the salt and water delivered by oral sulfate solution (OSS) preparation. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of PBK-1701TC compared with OSS in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This randomized, multicenter, phase 3 non-inferiority trial included adults aged 19 years or older with a body mass index of 19-30 kg/m² undergoing colonoscopy at five university hospitals in Korea. The primary efficacy endpoint was successful bowel-cleansing rate, defined as Harefield Cleansing Scale grade A or B as evaluated by blinded central readers. Secondary endpoints included the presence of residual air bubbles. Adverse events and laboratory evaluations were monitored to assess safety. Tolerability was assessed via participant interview.

RESULTS

Overall, 235 participants were randomized, and 224 were included in the per-protocol analysis (PBK, 112; OSS, 112). Successful bowel cleansing was achieved for 95.5% (107/112) in the PBK group, which was non-inferior to the OSS group (98.2%, 110/112) with a difference of -2.7% (one sided 97.5% confidence limit, -8.1%). The participants in the PBK group had fewer intraluminal bubbles (0.9% vs 81.3%, P < 0.001) and reported a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting, with better acceptance, taste, and willingness to repeat the regimen than those in the OSS group (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The novel sulfate tablet, PBK-1701TC, was non-inferior to OSS with respect to bowel-cleansing efficacy and exhibited better safety and tolerability in adults undergoing colonoscopy.

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Optimizing the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening Worldwide

Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.

Improved high-quality colon cleansing with 1L NER1006 versus 2L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate or oral sulfate solution

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy requires bowel cleansing for gut mucosa visualization; high-quality cleansing facilitates lesion detection. NER1006 is a 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation. This post hoc analysis of two randomized trials investigated cleansing efficacy assessed, as in clinical practice, by site endoscopists.

METHODS

Patients received NER1006, 2L PEG + ascorbate (2LPEG), or oral sulfate solution (OSS) as a 2-day evening/morning regimen (N2D) or NER1006 morning-only dosing (N1D). Treatment-blinded site endoscopists assessed cleansing using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). Analyses were conducted in a modified full analysis set, including (mFAS; n = 1378) or excluding (mFAS2; n = 1319) imputed failures, and in patients with 100% treatment adherence (mFAS100; n = 1047). Overall cleansing success (HCS grade A/B), overall high-quality cleansing (HCS grade A), and high-quality segments (HCS 3-4) per treatment population were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall cleansing success was higher with N2D than 2LPEG (92.7-97.5% vs. 87.9-93.0%), and more patients had overall high-quality cleansing with N2D and N1D than 2LPEG (68.0-72.1% and 64.0-68.4% vs. 50.7-56.0%). Without imputed failures, N2D delivered more overall high-quality cleansing than OSS (74.5-77.3% vs. 67.8-69.8%). More high-quality segments were demonstrated with N2D and N1D versus 2 LPEG (82.5-87.1% and 79.4-84.4% vs. 70.4-76.3%) and with N2D versus OSS (82.7-89.5% vs. 78.1-84.4%).

CONCLUSION

When assessed by site endoscopists, NER1006 delivers greater high-quality cleansing than 2LPEG or OSS.

IMPlementing split Regimen OVEr Single dose using a Plan-Do-Study-Act approach (IMPROVES study)

Background and aims  A split-dose regimen for colonoscopy is recommended by international guidelines, but its adoption is still suboptimal. Our aim was to assess whether a Plan-Do-Study-Act approach (PDSA), a scientific method promoting quality improvement, would be able to improve adherence to a split-dose regimen, and to identify factors influencing its adoption. Methods  This study consisted of three phases: Cycle 1: a cross-sectional assessment of split-dose adherence in consecutive outpatients/inpatients undergoing colonoscopies in 74 Italian centers; Educational intervention: regional meetings with literature review, analysis of Cycle 1 data, and discussion on corrective measures; local diffusion of educational material and tools for improvement; Cycle 2: reassessment of split-dose adherence after spontaneous local interventions. Demographic, clinical, and procedural variables were systematically collected. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of split-dose adoption. Results  In total, 8213 patients (mean age = 60.29 years (SD = 13.58), men = 54 %, outpatients = 88.4 %) were enrolled between 2013 and 2016 (Cycle 1 = 4189 patients and Cycle 2 = 4024 patients). Split-dose adoption rose from 29.1 % in Cycle 1 to 51.1 % in Cycle 2 ( P  < 0.0001), and being enrolled in Cycle 2 independently predicted split-dose adherence (OR = 2.9; 95 %CI 2.6 - 3.3). The adoption improved in all time slots, including colonoscopies scheduled before 0930. The main corrective measures were: rescheduling of colonoscopies after 0930 (between 0930 and 1130: OR = 2.6; 95 %CI 2.3 - 3.1; after 1130: OR = 7; 95 %CI 5.9 - 8.4); the cleansing regimen communicated by the Endoscopy unit (via form: OR = 1.6; 95 %CI 1.3 - 1.9; via visit: OR = 2.1; 95 %CI 1.7 - 2.5); a decrease in the use of deep sedation (OR = 2; 95 %CI 1.7 - 2.5). Conclusions  An educational intervention with observation-driven corrections through a PDSA approach was able to substantially increase the adoption of a split-dose regimen.

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

Background and Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Colonoscopic Enema With Additional Oral Preparation as a Salvage for Inadequate Bowel Cleansing Before Colonoscopy

GOALS

The goal of this study was to evaluate the noninferiority of colonoscopic enema to additional oral preparation in salvage bowel cleansing for inadequate preparation for a morning colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopic enema, administering additional cathartics into the right colon through the colonoscope accessory channel, is suggested to rescue poor bowel preparation for a colonoscopy but lacking comparative study.

STUDY

In this prospective, randomized, actively-controlled, parallel group, noninferiority trial, consecutive outpatients and health checkup recipients aged from 19 to 70 years with inappropriate bowel preparation during an elective colonoscopy were enrolled to receive either a colonoscopic enema of 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) (enema group) or additional oral intake of 2 L PEG (oral group). The primary endpoint was the proportion of adequate bowel preparation evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.

RESULTS

Overall, 131 participants were randomized. Adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 53% (35/66) of the enema group, which was significantly inferior to the oral group (81.5%; 53/67) with a difference of -28.5% (95% confidence interval, -44.1, -12.9; P=0.001). The largest difference in the proportion of adequate bowel preparation was observed in the right colon (57.8% in the enema group vs. 86.9% in the oral group; P<0.001), followed by the transverse colon (85.9% vs. 98.4%; P=0.017) and the left colon (90.6% vs. 96.7%; P=0.274).

CONCLUSIONS

The colonoscopic enema of 1 L PEG was inferior to the additional oral ingestion of 2 L PEG regarding efficacy as a salvage bowel preparation in adults with inadequate bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Educational virtual reality videos in improving bowel preparation quality and satisfaction of outpatients undergoing colonoscopy: protocol of a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is the reference method in screening and diagnosis of colorectal neoplasm, but its efficacy is closely related to the quality of bowel preparation. Poor patient compliance is a major risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation likely due to poor patient education. Such an education is usually provided via either oral or written instructions by clinicians. However, multiple education methods, such as smartphone applications, have been proved useful in aiding patients through bowel preparation. Also, it was reported that a large proportion of patients feel anxious before colonoscopy. Virtual reality (VR) is a novel method to educate patients and provides them with an immersive experience. Theoretically, it can make patients better prepared for bowel preparation and colonoscopy. However, no prospective studies have assessed the role of this novel technology in patient education before colonoscopy. We hypothesise that VR videos can improve bowel preparation quality and reduce pre-procedure anxiety.

METHODS/DESIGN

The trial is a prospective, randomised, single-blinded, single-centre trial. Outpatients who are scheduled to undergo colonoscopy for screening or diagnostic purposes for the first time will be randomised to receive either the conventional patient education or the conventional methods plus VR videos, and 322 patients will be enrolled from the Peking Union Medical College Hospital. The primary endpoint is the quality of bowel preparation, measured by the Boston bowel preparation score. Secondary endpoints include polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, patient compliance to complete bowel cleansing, withdrawal time, pre-procedure anxiety, overall satisfaction and willingness for the next colonoscopy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the institutional review board of the Peking Union Medical College Hospital (No. ZS-1647). The results of this trial will be published in an open-access way and disseminated among gastrointestinal physicians and endoscopists.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03667911.

Multicentre endoscopist-blinded randomised clinical trial to compare two bowel preparations after a colonoscopy with inadequate cleansing: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Inadequate bowel preparation is common and negatively impacts colonoscopy quality. The objective of this study is to compare two bowel preparation regimens in cleansing the colon after an index colonoscopy with failed bowel preparation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a phase III, multicentre, randomised clinical trial comparing two bowel preparation regimens after failure to adequately cleanse at the index colonoscopy. Regimen A consists of 4 L split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) and Regimen B consists of 6 L split-dose PEG-ELS, both preceded by 15 mg of bisacodyl the day before the procedure along with a low-fibre diet 3 and 2 days before the procedure followed by a clear fluid diet starting the day before the procedure. The primary outcome is adequate bowel preparation, defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of ≥6 with each segment score ≥2. Secondary outcomes include mean BBPS score, bowel preparation adequacy using the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer definition, detection rate by polyp subtype, caecal intubation rate, mean Validated Patient Tolerability Questionnaire for Bowel Preparation score, subject willingness to repeat the preparation and faecal incontinence rate.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and local institutional standards. Study findings will be disseminated at an international gastroenterology conference and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02976805; Pre-results.

Predictors and colonoscopy outcomes of inadequate bowel cleansing: a 10-year experience in 28,725 patients

Background:

Inadequate bowel preparation is still the main obstacle to a complete colonoscopy in many patients and necessitates many repeated procedures. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation and to better characterize these patients.

Methods:

This was a retrospective study that reviewed electronic reports of colonoscopy procedures over a 10-year period. Patients were divided into 2 groups: adequate vs. non-adequate bowel preparation. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with inadequate bowel preparation, including age, sex, setting (inpatient/outpatient), preparation regimen and procedures’ indications. We examined the effect of inadequate preparation on colonoscopy quality indicators.

Results:

Of the 28,725 patients included in the study, 6,702 (23.3%) had inadequate bowel preparation. In the multivariate analysis, advanced age (odds ratio [OR] 1.015, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.013-1.017; P<0.01), male sex (OR 1.353, 95%CI 1.286-1.423; P<0.01) and a minority population (OR 1.635, 95%CI 1.531-1.746; P<0.01) were significantly associated with inadequate bowel preparation. The inpatient setting was among the most prominent factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation (OR 2.018, 95%CI 1.884-2.163; P<0.01). Adequate bowel preparation was associated with a higher polyp detection rate (26.8% vs. 23.6%; OR 1.22, 95%CI 1.109-1.347; P<0.01) and colorectal cancer (2.8% vs. 2.4%; OR 1.402, 95%CI 1.146-1.716; P<0.01), and higher frequencies of cecal (96.4% vs. 73.5%; OR 2.243, 95%CI 2.095-2.403; P<0.01) and terminal ileum intubation (8.1% vs. 5.4%; OR 1.243, 95%CI 1.088-1.434; P<0.01).

Conclusion:

We outlined various factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation and confirmed its adverse effect on colonoscopy quality indicators.