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

Optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy: consensus recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Optimizing Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy: Consensus Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Optimizing Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy: Consensus Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Effect of Cholecystectomy on Bubble Formation and Endoscopic Visualization: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the association between cholecystectomy and colonic bubble formation during colonoscopy, METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted at Staten Island University Hospital. Researchers reviewed 348 colonoscopy reports, comparing patients with (n = 56) and without (n = 292) a history of cholecystectomy. Colonic bubble formation was assessed using a 0-3 scale (0 = no bubbles, 3 = severe bubbles). Secondary endpoints included polyp and adenoma detection, withdrawal and procedure times, bowel preparation quality, and repeat procedures. Statistical analysis included t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and χ2 tests.

RESULTS

Patients with prior cholecystectomy had significantly higher incidence of severe bubble formation (score 3; 28.6% vs. 12%, p = 0.001), longer withdrawal times (18 ± 8 vs. 15 ± 5 min, p = 0.024), and increased need for repeat colonoscopies (10.7% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in adenoma detection, polyp detection, or bowel preparation quality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Cholecystectomy is associated with increased colonic bubble formation during colonoscopy, leading to longer withdrawal times and higher rates of repeat procedures. While this study did not find a difference in adenoma detection rates, the impaired visualization caused by bubbles may necessitate tailored bowel preparation strategies for patients with a history of cholecystectomy to optimize colonoscopy effectiveness.

The Effect of Oral Simethicone in a Bowel Preparation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

Current guidelines suggest adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its effect on key quality indicators for screening colonoscopy remains unclear. The primary aim was to assess the rate of adequate bowel preparation in split-dose high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), with or without simethicone.

Methods

This is an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, including patients scheduled for colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 L of PEG split dose (PEG) or 4 L of PEG split dose plus 500 mg oral simethicone (PEG + simethicone). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, the preparation quality regarding bubbles using the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS), ADR, CIR, and the intraprocedural use of simethicone were recorded.

Results

We included 191 and 197 patients in the PEG + simethicone group and the PEG group, respectively. When comparing the PEG + simethicone group versus the PEG group, no significant differences in adequate bowel preparation rates (97% vs. 93%; p = 0.11) were found. However, the bubble scale score was significantly lower in the PEG + simethicone group (0 [0] versus 2 [5], p < 0.01), as well as intraprocedural use of simethicone (7% vs. 37%; p < 0.01). ADR (62% vs. 61%; p = 0.86) and CIR (98% vs. 96%, p = 0.14) did not differ between both groups.

Conclusion

Adding oral simethicone to a split-bowel preparation resulted in a lower incidence of bubbles and a lower intraprocedural use of simethicone but no further improvement on the preparation quality or ADR.

Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection

A review of the development of the key performance metrics of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), learning from the experience of the establishment of widespread colonoscopy quality measurements. Potential future performance markers for both colonoscopy and EMR are also evaluated to ensure continued high quality performance is maintained with a focus service framework and predictors of patient outcome.

Cleaning effect and tolerance of 16 bowel preparation regimens on adult patients before colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Before a colonoscopy, an adequate bowel preparation (BP) is required. Currently, more novel regimens with different effects have been proposed and used successively. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the cleaning effects and patients' tolerability of several BP regimens.

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including sixteen kinds of BP regimens. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The outcomes of this study were bowel cleansing effect and tolerance.

RESULTS

We included a total of 40 articles with 13,064 patients. For the primary outcomes, polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid (Asc) + simethicone (Sim) (OR, 14.27, 95%CrI, 2.68-127.87) regimen is ranked first in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PEG + Sim (OR, 2.0, 95%CrI 0.64-6.4) regimen is ranked first in Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), but without significant differences. For the secondary outcomes, PEG + Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SP/MC) (OR, 4.88e + 11, 95%CrI, 39.56-1.82e + 35) regimen is the best in cecal intubation rate(CIR). PEG + Sim (OR,1.5, 95%CrI, 1.0-2.2) regimen is ranked first in adenoma detection rate(ADR). Senna (OR, 3.23, 95%CrI, 1.04-9.97) and SP/MC (OR, 249.91, 95%CrI, 78.49-958.19) regimens are ranked first in abdominal pain and willingness to repeat, respectively. There is no significant difference in cecal intubation time (CIT), polyp detection rate (PDR), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloat.

CONCLUSION

PEG + Asc + Sim regimen is more effective at cleaning the bowel. PEG + SP/MC will be helpful to increase CIR. For ADR, PEG + Sim regimen will be more helpful. In addition, PEG + Asc + Sim is the least likely to cause abdominal bloat, while Senna regimen is more likely to cause abdominal pain. Patients prefer to re-use the SP/MC regimen for bowel preparation.

Minimizing the Risks of Simethicone in Endoscope Reprocessing

This statement was written under the auspices of the World Gastroenterology Organization's Guidelines Committee. The authors are members of the Review Team of the WGO Endoscope Disinfection Guideline and have experience in endoscopy, endoscope reprocessing, and microbiology, including biofilms. During the preparation of the WGO Update on Endoscope Disinfection Guidelines, concerns about simethicone on endoscope channel surfaces compromising cleaning and disinfection were raised. Publications on simethicone, including modes of delivery, effectiveness, and risks, have been reviewed. The paper was written as a companion to the new guidelines with a focus on minimizing the risks of simethicone in endoscope reprocessing.

Key factors for improving adenoma detection rate

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a fundamental tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Nevertheless, one-fourth of colorectal neoplasms are still missed during colonoscopy, potentially being the main reason for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is currently known as the best quality indicator correlating with PCCRC incidence.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a literature review in order to summarize evidences investigating key factors affecting ADR: endoscopists education and training, patient management, endoscopic techniques, improved navigation (exposition defect), and enhanced lesions recognition (vision defect) were considered.

EXPERT OPINION

'Traditional' factors, such as split dose bowel preparation, adequate withdrawal time, and right colon second view, held a significant impact on ADR. Several devices and technologies have been developed to promote high-quality colonoscopy, however artificial intelligence may be considered the most promising tool for ADR improvement, provided that endoscopists education and recording are guaranteed.

Effect of oral simethicone on the quality of colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the effect of oral simethicone (SIM), an antifoaming agent, on the quality of colonoscopy in terms of bowel preparation quality, adenoma or polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR).

METHODS

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of SIM during bowel preparation for colonoscopy published up to 17 March 2021 were identified from the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Bowel preparation quality, ADR/PDR/CIR, cecal intubation time (CIT), withdrawal time (WT), patients' tolerability, acceptability and volume of foam and bubbles were compared between the SIM and non-SIM groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight RCTs with 10 505 patients were included. Oral SIM significantly increased the rate of total Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score ≥6 (risk ratio [RR]  1.13, P < 0.0001), acceptability (RR  1.15, P = 0.01) and the rate of no or minimal foam and bubbles (RR  1.28, P < 0.00001) and decreased abdominal distension (RR  0.64, P < 0.0001). However, it had no significant impact on overall ADR, overall PDR, CIR, CIT or WT. The rate of total BBPS score ≥6 remained significantly higher in the SIM group when a single-dose laxative regimen or a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg was employed; and ADR, PDR and CIR were significantly increased in the SIM group among colonoscopy clinicians who achieved an ADR <31%, PDR <45% and CIR <96%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral SIM can improve bowel preparation quality, especially in patients receiving a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg or a single-dose laxative regimen. SIM may be preferred by junior colonoscopy physicians/trainees with a lower ADR/PDR or CIR.

The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study

BACKGROUND

To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5 %-50 %; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone).

RESULTS

CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70-78) for CEBuS-2.

CONCLUSION

CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

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.

The Efficacy of Simethicone With Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Simethicone (SIM) is a commonly used antifoaming agent in the clinic. However, it has not been clarified whether SIM can improve the quality of intestinal preparation and the detection rates of adenomas (ADR) and polyps (PDR). This systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to mainly evaluate the effect of SIM in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic and a manual search of the literature for studies was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science in all published data before February 1, 2020. The primary outcomes were the quality of bowel preparation and the ADR and PDR. All the data were calculated using a pooled estimate of risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals, and a random-effect model was used for the calculation.

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized controlled trials with 7187 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) with SIM improved colon cleansing (P<0.00001), PDR (P=0.006) and the detection rate of lesions in the right colon (P<0.00001) when compared with PEG alone. There was no difference in the ADR (P=0.68), withdrawal time (P=0.06), cecal intubation rate (P=0.98), and cecal intubation time (P=0.65) between 2 groups. The rate of abdominal bloating rate was higher in the PEG group, but there was no significant difference in vomiting (P=0.65), and abdominal pain (P=0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

SIM improves the quality of bowel cleanliness and PDR but not ADR. Besides, SIM improves the detection rate of lesions in the right colon and decreased abdominal bloating, but do not affect vomiting and abdominal pain or cramping.

Effect of antifoaming agent on benign colorectal tumors in colonoscopy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although several trials have shown that the addition of antifoaming agents to polyethylene glycol (PEG) can improve bowel preparation, whether PEG plus antifoaming agents have a beneficial role in the detection of benign tumors during colonoscopy has yet to be confirmed. Our aim was to clarify whether adding simethicone to PEG solution could improve the detection of benign colorectal tumors.

AIM

To clarify whether adding simethicone to PEG solution could improve the detection of benign colorectal tumors.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published prior to September 2019. The outcomes included the detection rates of colorectal adenomas and polyps.

RESULT

Twenty studies were eligible. Although there was no difference in the colorectal adenoma detection rate (ADR), a significant effect of simethicone for diminutive adenomas (< 10 mm) was revealed in the group taking simethicone. We also found that simethicone could significantly improve the ADR in the proximal colon but did not affect the colorectal polyp detection rate. Furthermore, the subgroup analyses revealed a beneficial effect of simethicone on the ADR among Asians (P = 0.005) and those with an ADR < 25% (P = 0.003). Moreover, it was a significant finding that the low dose simethicone was as effective as the high dose one with respect to the detection of benign colorectal tumors.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the addition of simethicone to PEG might improve the detection of diminutive adenomas in the right colon by colonoscopy in Asia. Low-dose simethicone was recommended for the detection of benign colorectal tumors. However, large clinical trials are necessary to validate our results and determine the ideal dose of simethicone.

Efficacy of low-dose versus high-dose simethicone with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Additional simethicone (SIM) can improve adequate bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, there is no consensus on the optimal dose of SIM. In this study, we compared the adequate bowel preparation rate with supplementation of split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-dose SIM (200 mg) versus high-dose SIM (1200 mg).

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded trial involving consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation as assessed by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score.

RESULTS

Four hundred subjects were randomly allocated to low-dose SIM or high-dose SIM group. Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to total bubble scale (BS) (8.49 ± 1.00 vs 8.39 ± 1.10, P = 0.07), total BBPS score (8.70 ± 0.81 vs 8.29 ± 1.18, P = 0.98), ADR (33.68% vs 31.79%, P = 0.69) or withdrawal time (13 [range, 10-16] min vs 13 [10-15] min, P = 0.96). The intubation time in low-dose SIM group was significantly shorter than that in high-dose SIM group (8 (4-16) min vs 10 [6-17] min, P = 0.04). In addition, BS scores as well as diminutive ADR in right colon were superior in the low-dose SIM group (2.68 ± 0.59 vs 2.52 ± 0.73, P = 0.03 and 54.29% vs 30.30%, P = 0.046, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Addition of low-dose SIM to split-dose 2 L PEG was as effective as addition of high-dose SIM with respect to adequate bowel preparation, ADR and patient tolerance. However, low-dose SIM was superior with respect to intubation time, right colon BS scores, right colon diminutive ADR and cost savings.

Strategies to Improve Inadequate Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

Bowel cleansing is one of the most important parameters included in the evaluation of colonoscopy quality. The available evidence suggests that inadequate bowel preparation reduces the diagnostic yield of colorectal neoplasia and increases post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer risk. Nowadays, up to 30% of patients referred for colonoscopy have a poor bowel cleansing. Recently, several studies have analyzed the risk factors for inadequate bowel cleansing as well as the strategies to optimize bowel preparation. In this review, we have focused on summarizing the available evidence in this field.