Optimal bowel preparation--a practical guide for clinicians

Development and validation of a novel scoring system based on a nomogram for predicting inadequate bowel preparation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adequate bowel preparation (BP) is crucial for the diagnosis of colorectal diseases. Identifying patients at risk of inadequate BP allows for targeted interventions and improved outcomes. We aimed to develop a model for predicting inadequate BP based on preparation-related factors.

METHODS

Adult outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy between May 2022 and October 2022 were enrolled. One set (N = 913) was used to develop and internally validate the predictive model. The primary predictive model was displayed as a nomogram and then modified into a novel scoring system, which was externally validated in an independent set (N = 177). Inadequate BP was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparedness Scale (BBPS) score of less than 2 for any colonic segment. The model was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA).

RESULTS

Independent factors included in the prediction model were stool frequency ≤ 5 (15 points), preparation-to-colonoscopy interval ≥ 5 h (15 points), incomplete dosage (100 points), non-split dose (90 points), unrestricted diet (88 points), no additional water intake (15 points), and last stool appearance as an opaque liquid (0-80 points). The training set exhibited the following performance metrics for identifying BP failure: area under the curve (AUC) of 0.818, accuracy (ACC) of 0.818, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 2.397, negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.162, positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.850, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.723. In the internal validation set, these metrics were 0.747, 0.776, 2.099, 0.278, 0.866, and 0.538, respectively. The external validation set showed values of 0.728, 0.757, 2.10, 0.247, 0.782, and 0.704, respectively, indicating strong discriminative ability. Calibration curves demonstrated close agreement, and DCA indicated superior clinical benefits at a threshold probability of 0.73 in the training cohort and 0.75 in the validation cohort for this model.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel scoring system was developed from a prospective study and externally validated in an independent set based on 7 easily accessible variables, demonstrating robust performance in predicting inadequate BP.

Gut microbiota dynamics and fecal SCFAs after colonoscopy: accelerating microbiome stabilization by Clostridium butyricum

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a classic diagnostic method with possible complications including abdominal pain and diarrhoea. In this study, gut microbiota dynamics and related metabolic products during and after colonoscopy were explored to accelerate gut microbiome balance through probiotics.

METHODS

The gut microbiota and fecal short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) were analyzed in four healthy subjects before and after colonoscopy, along with seven individuals supplemented with Clostridium butyricum. We employed 16S rRNA sequencing and GC-MS to investigate these changes. We also conducted bioinformatic analysis to explore the buk gene, encoding butyrate kinase, across C. butyricum strains from the human gut.

RESULTS

The gut microbiota and fecal short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) of four healthy subjects were recovered on the 7th day after colonoscopy. We found that Clostridium and other bacteria might have efficient butyric acid production through bioinformatic analysis of the buk and assessment of the transcriptional level of the buk. Supplementation of seven healthy subjects with Clostridium butyricum after colonoscopy resulted in a quicker recovery and stabilization of gut microbiota and fecal SCFAs on the third day.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that supplementation of Clostridium butyricum after colonoscopy should be considered in future routine clinical practice.

Performing High-Quality, Safe, Cost-Effective, and Efficient Basic Colonoscopy in 2023: Advice From Two Experts

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Mandatory vs. optional split-dose bowel preparation for morning colonoscopies: a pragmatic noninferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND : We compared the effectiveness of optional split-dose bowel preparation (SDBP) with mandatory SDBP for morning colonoscopies in usual clinical practice. METHODS : Adult patients undergoing outpatient early morning (8:00 AM-10:30 PM) and late morning (10:30 AM-12:00 PM) colonoscopies were included. Written bowel preparation instructions were provided based on randomization: one group were instructed to take their bowel preparation (4 L polyethylene glycol solution) as a split dose (mandatory), while the comparator group was allowed the choice of SDBP or single-dose bowel preparation administered entirely on the day before (optional). The primary end point, using noninferiority hypothesis testing with a 5 % margin, was adequate bowel cleanliness measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and defined by a BBPS score ≥ 6. RESULTS : Among 770 randomized patients with complete data, there were 267 mandatory SDBP and 265 optional SDBP patients for early morning colonoscopies, and 120 mandatory SDBP and 118 optional SDBP patients for late morning colonoscopies. Optional SDBP was inferior to mandatory SDBP, with a lower proportion of adequate BBPS cleanliness for early morning colonoscopies (78.9 % vs. 89.9 %; absolute risk difference [aRD] 11.0 %, 95 %CI 5.9 % to 16.1 %), but was not statistically different for late morning colonoscopies (76.3 % vs. 83.3 %; aRD 7.1 %, 95 %CI -1.5 % to 15.5 %). CONCLUSIONS : Optional SDBP is inferior to mandatory SDBP in providing adequate bowel preparation quality for early morning colonoscopies (8:00 AM-10:30 AM), and probably inferior for late morning colonoscopies (10:30 AM-12:00 PM).

2021 Patient Perceptions Regarding Colonoscopy Experience

GOAL

We sought to document patient perceptions in 2021 regarding colonoscopy experience and potential deterrents to repeat colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Bowel preparation has been previously considered by patients to be the worst part of a colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective survey of consecutive patients age 18 years and older who had just completed colonoscopy at 2 outpatient endoscopy centers at a tertiary academic hospital. The short survey was conducted in the recovery area. The main outcome measure was patient perceptions of the worst part of their colonoscopy experience and which factor would most deter them from a future colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Four hundred patients completed the survey of 405 approached. Average patient age was 64 years, and 48% were women. Seventy-five percent of patients used low-volume preparations. Bowel preparation was considered the worst part of colonoscopy by 71% of patients. Women were more likely to choose laxatives as the worst part of a colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was chosen most often (55%) as the most likely deterrent to a future colonoscopy. There were minimal differences in responses between those receiving low-volume versus high-volume (4 L) preparations.

CONCLUSION

Bowel preparation remains the worst part of the colonoscopy experience for patients, and the most likely deterrent to future colonoscopy.

Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature

Adequate bowel cleansing is critical for a high-quality colonoscopy because it affects diagnostic accuracy and adenoma detection. Nevertheless, almost a quarter of procedures are still carried out with suboptimal preparation, resulting in longer procedure times, higher risk of complications, and higher likelihood of missing lesions. Current guidelines recommend high-volume or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)/non-PEG-based split-dose regimens. In patients who have had insufficient bowel cleansing, the colonoscopy should be repeated the same day or the next day with additional bowel cleansing as a salvage option. A strategy that includes a prolonged low-fiber diet, a split preparation regimen, and a colonoscopy within 5 h of the end of preparation may increase cleansing success rates in the elderly. Furthermore, even though no specific product is specifically recommended in the other cases for difficult-to-prepare patients, clinical evidence suggests that 1-L PEG plus ascorbic acid preparation are associated with higher cleansing success in hospitalized and inflammatory bowel disease patients. Patients with severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min) should be prepared with isotonic high volume PEG solutions. Few data on cirrhotic patients are currently available, and no trials have been conducted in this population. An accurate characterization of procedural and patient variables may lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation, especially in patients undergoing resection of left colon lesions, where intestinal preparation has a poor outcome. The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence on the risk factors influencing the quality of bowel cleansing in difficult-to-prepare patients, as well as strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in these patients.

Low volume polyethylene glycol combined with senna versus high volume polyethylene glycol, which regimen is better for bowel preparation for colonoscopy? A randomized, controlled, and single‐blinded trial

Background and Aims

Bowel preparation affects the quality of colonoscopy. Reaching the optimal preparation has been a challenge for years. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the sole FDA‐approved substance for this purpose. However, patients find it unpleasant and often complain about its adverse effects. In this study, we aimed to reduce these complaints by lowering the amount of PEG and adding senna which is an herbal stimulant laxative.

Methods

Four hundred and eighty‐six patients were admitted for colonoscopy. Finally, 382 patients were enrolled in the study and we divided them into two groups; 186 patients were placed in which conventional high volume PEG‐alone regimen was consumed and 196 patients in which low volume PEG plus senna regimen was offered. The quality of colon preparation was compared between the two groups by independent two samples t‐test (or its corresponding nonparametric test), Fisher's exact, or χ² test in SPSS software version 22.

Results

The colon preparation quality was equally efficient in the two groups as 69.36% in the high volume PEG group and 71.94% in PEG plus senna group had adequate bowel preparation (p = 0.58). Adverse effects, like nausea, bloating, headache, and sleeplessness were significantly less in the low volume PEG plus senna group.

Conclusion

Besides the fact that bowel preparation by low volume PEG plus senna combination was noninferior to the conventional high volume PEG‐alone regimen, the side effects were much less common with the low volume PEG plus senna regimen.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Supplementary education can improve the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Background

Colonoscopy is widely used for the screening, diagnosis and treatment of intestinal diseases. Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for high-quality colonoscopy. However, the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients is low. Several studies on supplementary education methods have been conducted to improve the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients. However, the controversial results presented encourage us to perform this meta-analysis.

Method

According to the PRISMA statement (2020), the meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO. We searched all studies up to August 28, 2021, in the three major electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation rate, and the secondary outcomes included bowel preparation quality score, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, nonattendance rate and willingness to repeat rate. If there was obvious heterogeneity, the funnel plot combined with Egger’s test, meta-regression analysis, sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were used to detect the source of heterogeneity. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 17.0 software were used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 2061 records were retrieved, and 21 full texts were ultimately included in the analysis. Our meta-analysis shows that supplementary education can increase the rate of adequate bowel preparation for outpatients (79.9% vs 72.9%, RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08–1.20, I² = 87%, p<0.00001). Supplementary education shortened the withdrawal time (MD: -0.80, 95% CI: -1.54 to -0.05, p = 0.04) of outpatients, increased the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (MD: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.44, p<0.00001), reduced the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (MD: -1.26, 95% CI: -1.66 to -0.86, p<0.00001) and increased the willingness to repeat (91.9% vs 81.4%, RR:1.14, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.25, p = 0.004).

Conclusion

Supplementary education for outpatients based on the standard of care can significantly improve the quality of bowel preparation.

Comparative Effectiveness of Commercial Bowel Preparations in Ambulatory Patients Presenting for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) is associated with reduced adenoma detection. However, limited research has examined the impact of different commercial bowel preparations (CBPs) on IBP and adenoma detection. We aim to determine whether type of CBP used is associated with IBP or adenoma detection.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated outpatient, screening or surveillance colonoscopies performed in the Cleveland Clinic health system between January 2011 and June 2017. IBP was defined by the Aronchick scale. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to assess the association between CBP type and IBP and adenoma detection. Fixed effects were defined as demographics, comorbidities, medication use, and colonoscopy factors. Random effect of individual endoscopist was considered.

RESULTS

Of 153,639 colonoscopies, 75,874 records met inclusion criteria. Median age was 54; 50% were female; 17.7% had IBP, and adenoma detection rate was 32.6%. In adjusted analyses, compared to GoLYTELY, only NuLYTELY [OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.60, 0.72)] and SuPREP [OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.40, 0.69)] were associated with reduced IBP. Adenoma detection did not vary based on the type of bowel preparation used.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients referred for screening or surveillance colonoscopy, choice of CBP was not associated with adenoma detection. Decisions about CBP should be based on other factors, such as tolerability, cost, or safety.

Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer (CRC) in Cystic Fibrosis (CF) Patients

Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is the commonest inherited genetic disorder in Caucasians due to a mutation in the gene CFTR (Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator), and it should be considered as an Inherited Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Syndrome. In the United States, physicians of CF Foundation established the “Developing Innovative Gastroenterology Speciality Training Program” to increase the research on CF in gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary diseases. The risk to develop a CRC is 5–10 times higher in CF patients than in the general population and even greater in CF patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy due to organ transplantation (30-fold increased risk relative to the general population). Colonoscopy should be considered the best screening for CRC in CF patients. The screening colonoscopy should be started at the age of 40 in CF patients and, if negative, a new colonoscopy should be performed every 5 years and every 3 years if adenomas are detected. For transplanted CF patients, the screening colonoscopy could be started at the age of 35, in transplanted patients at the age of 30 and, if before, at the age of 30. CF transplanted patients, between the age of 35 and 55, must repeat colonoscopy every 3 years. Our review draws attention towards the clinically relevant development of CRC in CF patients, and it may pave the way for further screenings and studies.

Effect of water exchange method on adenoma miss rate of patients undergoing selective polypectomy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Adenomas may be missed in up to 40% of screening colonoscopies. Although the water exchange (WE) method can improve ADR, as shown in several RCTs, it remains uncertain whether it can increase the detection of missing adenomas compared with standard air-insufflated (AI) colonoscopy.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-80 years who underwent selective polypectomy were randomly allocated to the WE or AI group. The primary endpoint was the adenoma miss rate (AMR), defined as the number of patients with one or more additional adenomas during the polypectomy procedure divided by the total number of patients in each group.

RESULTS

A total of 450 patients were enrolled, with 225 in each group. The overall AMRs were 45.8% (103/225) in the WE group and 35.6% (80/225) in the AI group (p = 0.035). More patients in the WE group had at least one missed adenoma in the proximal colon (38.2% vs 24.4%, p = 0.002). The adenoma-level miss rate was also higher in the WE group than in the AI group (35.1% vs 29.0%, p = 0.036). Subgroup analysis showed that patients in the WE group had more missed adenomas located in the proximal colon or with flat shapes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed that substantial adenomas were missed in patients undergoing selective polypectomy. The WE method significantly improved the detection of missed adenomas, especially those located in the proximal colon or with flat shapes. (ClnicalTrials.gov number: NCT02880748).

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Very-low Volume Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Narrative Review

An adequate bowel preparation is essential for a successful colonoscopy, in particular, in the setting of colorectal cancer screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, prolonged procedural time, and an increased likelihood of repeat the procedure. The ideal intestinal preparation should provide an optimal observation of the mucosa (at least &gt; 90% of the visible surface), with adequate acceptability and safety for the patient. With this premise, a very low-volume 1 L PEG-ASC solution (Plenvu; Norgine, Harefield, United Kingdom) has been recently introduced to improve patients' experience in colonoscopy by reducing the total intake of liquids to be consumed. This could represent a valid option for bowel cleansing, considering CRC screening and surveillance programs, improving both the quality of the examination and the patients' compliance. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that a "one size fits all" preparation strategy is not feasible and that a bowel preparation regime must always be selected and tailored by the clinician for each patient, evaluating the best options on a case by case basis. This narrative review aims to sum up the evidence regarding new bowel preparation regimens in order to help clinicians to tailor the best choice for patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Computer-based patient education is non-inferior to nurse counselling prior to colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Optimal patient education prior to colonoscopy improves adherence to instructions for bowel preparation and leads to cleaner colons. We developed computer-based education (CBE) supported by video and 3 D animations. We hypothesized that CBE could replace nurse counselling without loss of bowel preparation quality during colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, endoscopist-blinded, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcome measures were: sickness absence for outpatient clinic visits; patient anxiety/satisfaction scores; and information recall. We included patients in four endoscopy units (rural, urban, and tertiary).

RESULTS

We screened 1035 eligible patients and randomized 845. After evaluation, 684 were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) group. Subsequently, 497 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis, 217 in the nurse counselling and 280 in the CBE group. Baseline characteristics were similarly distributed among the groups. On per-protocol analysis, adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 93.2 % (261/280) of CBE patients, which was non-inferior to nurse-counselled patients (94.0 %; 204/217), with a difference of -0.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] -5.1 % to 3.5 %). Non-inferiority was confirmed in the ITT population. Sickness absence was significantly more frequent in nurse-counselled patients (28.0 % vs. 4.8 %). In CBE patients, 21.5 % needed additional information, with 3.0 % needing an extra outpatient visit.

CONCLUSION

CBE is non-inferior to nurse counselling in terms of bowel preparation during colonoscopy, with lower patient sickness leave. CBE may serve as an efficient educational tool to inform patients before colonoscopy in routine clinical practice.

An Evidence-based Approach Towards Targeted Patient Education to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

GOALS AND BACKGROUND

Quality of bowel preparation is an important factor influencing adenoma detection. Patient education is believed to improve the quality of bowel preparation but might be resource-intensive. We aimed to (a) identify risk factors for failed bowel preparations and (b) develop and test the efficacy of a screening tool that allows to prospectively identify and target patients at increased risk.

STUDY

Part 1: 76 consecutive outpatients with poor bowel preparation were compared with 76 age-matched and gender-matched outpatients with good preparation from the same procedure lists. Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained from centralized databases. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for poor bowel preparation. Part 2: on the basis of results of part 1, a screening tool for prospectively identifying patients at high risk was developed, and targeted education tested.

RESULTS

We identified the use of opioids or other constipating agents and low socioeconomic status as risk factors for poor bowel preparation [odds ratio (OR)=2.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22-6.80 and OR=2.43; 95% CI: 1.25-4.72]. Diabetes, hypothyroidism, age, and gender were found to have no effect on quality. When education was provided only to patients at increased risk, the targeted approach did not negatively affect the proportion of poor preparation (OR=6.12%; 95% CI: 4.79%-7.78% vs. OR=5.73%; 95% CI: 4.61%-7.10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor bowel preparation is associated with specific risk factors. Identifying and specifically targeting education at patients with these risk factors appears to facilitate more efficient use of education resources in endoscopy.

Factors affecting bowel preparation adequacy and procedural time

Background and Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a ready-to-drink bowel preparation in overweight and obese adults: subanalysis by body mass index from a phase III, assessor-blinded study

BACKGROUND

We performed a post hoc secondary analysis for the effect of body mass index (BMI) on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ready-to-drink sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (SPMC oral solution) bowel preparation.

METHODS

A phase III, randomized, assessor-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority study was conducted comparing split-dose, low-volume SPMC oral solution with a powder formulation for oral solution. A post hoc secondary analysis assessed efficacy, safety, and tolerability of SPMC oral solution stratified by BMI. BMI was classified by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions (underweight and normal weight: BMI < 25 kg/m²; overweight: BMI 25-29.9 kg/m²; class I obesity: BMI 30-34.9 kg/m²; class II obesity: BMI 35-39.9 kg/m²; class III/severe obesity: BMI ⩾40 kg/m²). Prespecified primary efficacy endpoint ('responders') was the proportion of participants with 'excellent' or 'good' ratings on a modified Aronchick Scale (AS). Secondary efficacy outcomes were the quality of cleansing of the right colon as assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS); as well as selected findings from the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

Between 82.8% and 92.5% of participants in any BMI group were responders by AS, and between 91.3% and 100% were responders by BBPS in the right colon. Efficacy was consistent across BMI groups, with no clear trends. Greater than 83% of participants in any BMI group found the preparation 'easy' or 'acceptable' to ingest, and the majority (>58%) rated SPMC oral solution as 'better' than a prior bowel preparation. In all BMI groups, safety data were similar to the overall cohort. Commonly reported, drug-related, treatment-emergent AEs were, by ascending BMI group, nausea (1.1%, 5.3%, 1.0%, 5.7%, and 0%) and headache (1.1%, 4.1%, 1.0%, 5.7%, and 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ready-to-drink SPMC oral solution had consistent, good quality colon cleansing, and favorable tolerability among participants of all BMI groups.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION

NCT03017235.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a ready-to-drink bowel preparation: subanalysis by age from a phase III, assessor-blinded study

BACKGROUND

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) increase with age and, therefore, it is recommended that adults undergo regular CRC screening, ideally by colonoscopy, with some new guidelines recommending screening begin at 45 years. Effective bowel preparation is a critical step to a successful colonoscopy. Of concern is that older adults may have poorer quality of bowel preparation or reduced tolerability for the bowel preparation. Here, we performed a post hoc secondary analysis for the effect of age on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ready-to-drink sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (SPMC oral solution) bowel preparation.

METHODS

A phase III, randomized, assessor-blinded, multicenter, non-inferiority study was conducted comparing split-dose, low-volume SPMC oral solution with split-dose, low-volume sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid powder for oral solution. A post hoc secondary analysis was performed to assess efficacy, safety, and tolerability of SPMC oral solution by age group (<50 years, 50-64 years, ⩾65 years). The prespecified primary efficacy endpoint ('responders') was the proportion of participants with 'excellent' or 'good' ratings on a modified Aronchick Scale (AS). Secondary efficacy outcomes were the quality of cleansing of the right colon as assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS); as well as selected findings from the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

Within age groups, at least 83.9% of participants were responders by the AS, and at least 91.1% of participants were responders by the BBPS in the right colon. On both scales, responder rates were highest in the youngest age group and decreased with increasing age. Greater than 88% of participants in any age group found the preparation 'easy' or 'acceptable' to ingest, with rates of 'easy' being highest in the oldest age group. No new safety signals were seen in any age group. The most commonly reported drug-related, treatment-emergent AEs were, by ascending age group, nausea (7.0%, 3.2%, 0.8%), headache (4.2%, 2.8%, 1.6%) and vomiting (2.8%, 1.2%, 0.8%).

CONCLUSION

Ready-to-drink SPMC oral solution showed good efficacy of overall colon cleansing and tolerability in adults across different age groups, including those ⩾65 years.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03017235.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Microbiome-Host Interaction as a Potential Driver of Anastomotic Leak

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper is to review current literature on the gut microbiome within the context of host response to surgery and subsequent risk of developing complications, particularly anastomotic leak. We provide background on the relationship between host and gut microbiota with description of the role of the intestinal mucus layer as an important regulator of host health.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite improvements in surgical technique and adherence to the tenets of creating a tension-free anastomosis with adequate blood flow, the surgical community has been unable to decrease rates of anastomotic leak using the current paradigm. Rather than adhere to empirical strategies of decontamination, it is imperative to focus on the interaction between the human host and the gut microbiota that live within us. The gut microbiome has been found to play a potential role in development of post-operative complications, including but not limited to anastomotic leak. Evidence suggests that peri-operative interventions may have a role in instigating or mitigating the impact of the gut microbiota via disruption of the protective mucus layer, use of multiple medications, and activation of virulence factors. The microbiome plays a potential role in the development of surgical complications and can be modulated by peri-operative interventions. As such, further research into this relationship is urgently needed.

Quality measures improving endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health-care problem all over the world and CRC screening is effective in reducing mortality and increasing the 5-year survival. Colonoscopy has a central role in CRC screening. It can be performed as a primary test, as a recall policy after a positive result of another screening test, and for surveillance. Since effectiveness of endoscopic screening depends on adequate detection and removal of colonic polyps, consistent quality measures, which are useful in enhancing the diagnostic yield of examination, are essential. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to analyze current evidence from literature supporting quality measures able to refine endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer. Expert commentary: Quality measures namely a) time slot allotted to colonoscopy, b) assessment of indication, c) bowel preparation, d) Cecal intubation, e) withdrawal time, f) adenoma detection rate, g) proper management of lesions (polypectomy technique, polyps retrieval rate and tattooing of resection sites), and h) adequate follow-up intervals play a key role in identifying malignant and at-risk lesions and improving the outcome of screening. Adherence to these quality measures is critical to maximize the effectiveness of CRC screening, as well as, a proper technique of colonoscopy and a quality report of the procedure. Among all recommended measures, adenoma detection rate is the most important and must be kept above the recommended quality threshold by all physicians practicing in the setting of screening.

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

BACKGROUND

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

GOALS

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

STUDY

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Perspectives of primary care providers and endoscopists about current practices, facilitators and barriers for preparation and follow-up of colonoscopy procedures: a qualitative study

Background

Colonoscopy has become a common medical procedure due to increased use of colonoscopy for evaluation of symptoms, colorectal cancer screening and surveillance of people with higher risks of developing colorectal cancer. Timely access to colonoscopy is essential for diagnosis of colorectal cancer, as well as diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease and gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea. The purpose of this study was to obtain the perspectives of primary care providers and endoscopists about current practices, barriers and facilitators to following recommended practice for preparation and follow-up after colonoscopy. We also aimed to obtain recommendations for approaches to improve the process.

Methods

Six focus groups (two with gastroenterologists, two with surgeons who perform colonoscopies and two with primary care providers) were held between October 2015 and January 2016. Analysis was performed using inductive qualitative approaches.

Results

Variations and challenges in communication for continuity of care and understanding the distribution of responsibility were identified, as were perceived benefits and challenges of a central intake system for colonoscopies. Recommendations were made to improve processes including strengthening communication and information sharing. A comprehensive quality improvement plan would facilitate implementation of recommendations.

Conclusions

Findings emphasize the need for improved patient-focused information resources for each step of the colonoscopy process and improved communication among practitioners. The findings apply to other services requiring collaboration among patients, primary care providers, and medical specialists.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3567-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

Background and aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Predictors of patient reluctance to wake early in the morning for bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a precolonoscopy survey in city-wide practice

INTRODUCTION

 Many endoscopists do not use split-dose bowel preparation (SDBP) for morning colonoscopies. Despite SDBP being recommended practice, they believe patients will not agree to take early morning bowel preparation (BP). We assessed patients' opinions about waking early for BP.

METHODS

 A self-administered survey was distributed between 08/2015 and 06/2016 to patients in Winnipeg, Canada when they attended an outpatient colonoscopy. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of reluctance to use early morning BP.

RESULTS

 Of the 1336 respondents (52 % female, median age 57 years), 33 % had used SDBP for their current colonoscopy. Of the 1336, 49 % were willing, 24 % neutral, and 27 % reluctant to do early morning BP. Predictors of reluctant versus willing were number of prior colonoscopies (OR 1.20; 95 %CI: 1.07 - 1.35), female gender (OR 1.65; 95 %CI: 1.19 - 2.29), unclear BP information (OR 1.86; 95 %CI: 1.21 - 2.85), high BP anxiety (OR 2.02; 95 %CI: 1.35 - 3.02), purpose of current colonoscopy being bowel symptoms (OR 1.40; 95 %CI: 1.00 - 1.97), use of 4 L of polyethylene glycol laxative (OR 1.45; 95 %CI: 1.02 - 2.06), not having SDBP (OR 1.96; 95 %CI: 1.31 - 2.93), and not having finished the laxative for the current colonoscopy (OR 1.66; 95 %CI: 1.01 - 2.73). Most of the same predictors were identified when reluctance was compared to willing or neutral, and in ordinal logistic regression.

CONCLUSIONS

 Almost three-quarters of patients do not express reluctance to get up early for BP. Among those who are reluctant, improving BP information, allaying BP-related anxiety, and use of low volume BP may increase acceptance of SDBP.

Factors Associated with Anxiety About Colonoscopy: The Preparation, the Procedure, and the Anticipated Findings

BACKGROUND

Previous research has assessed anxiety around colonoscopy procedures, but has not considered anxiety related to different aspects related to the colonoscopy process.

AIMS

Before colonoscopy, we assessed anxiety about: bowel preparation, the procedure, and the anticipated results. We evaluated associations between patient characteristics and anxiety in each area.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed to patients immediately prior to their outpatient colonoscopy in six hospitals and two ambulatory care centers in Winnipeg, Canada. Anxiety was assessed using a visual analog scale. For each aspect, logistic regression models were used to explore associations between patient characteristics and high anxiety.

RESULTS

A total of 1316 respondents completed the questions about anxiety (52% female, median age 56 years). Anxiety scores > 70 (high anxiety) were reported by 18% about bowel preparation, 29% about the procedure, and 28% about the procedure results. High anxiety about bowel preparation was associated with female sex, perceived unclear instructions, unfinished laxative, and no previous colonoscopies. High anxiety about the procedure was associated with female sex, no previous colonoscopies, and confusing instructions. High anxiety about the results was associated with symptoms as an indication for colonoscopy and instructions perceived as confusing.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer people had high anxiety about preparation than about the procedure and findings of the procedure. There are unique predictors of anxiety about each colonoscopy aspect. Understanding the nuanced differences in aspects of anxiety may help to design strategies to reduce anxiety, leading to improved acceptance of the procedure, compliance with preparation instructions, and less discomfort with the procedure.

Cystic Fibrosis Colorectal Cancer Screening Consensus Recommendations

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Improved therapy has substantially increased survival of persons with cystic fibrosis (CF). But the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adults with CF is 5-10 times greater compared to the general population, and 25-30 times greater in CF patients after an organ transplantation. To address this risk, the CF Foundation convened a multi-stakeholder task force to develop CRC screening recommendations.

METHODS

The 18-member task force consisted of experts including pulmonologists, gastroenterologists, a social worker, nurse coordinator, surgeon, epidemiologist, statistician, CF adult, and a parent. The committee comprised 3 workgroups: Cancer Risk, Transplant, and Procedure and Preparation. A guidelines specialist at the CF Foundation conducted an evidence synthesis February-March 2016 based on PubMed literature searches. Task force members conducted additional independent searches. A total of 1159 articles were retrieved. After initial screening, the committee read 198 articles in full and analyzed 123 articles to develop recommendation statements. An independent decision analysis evaluating the benefits of screening relative to harms and resources required was conducted by the Department of Public Health at Erasmus Medical Center, Netherlands using the Microsimulation Screening Analysis model from the Cancer Innervation and Surveillance Modeling Network. The task force included recommendation statements in the final guideline only if they reached an 80% acceptance threshold.

RESULTS

The task force makes 10 CRC screening recommendations that emphasize shared, individualized decision-making and familiarity with CF-specific gastrointestinal challenges. We recommend colonoscopy as the preferred screening method, initiation of screening at age 40 years, 5-year re-screening and 3-year surveillance intervals (unless shorter interval is indicated by individual findings), and a CF-specific intensive bowel preparation. Organ transplant recipients with CF should initiate CRC screening at age 30 years within 2 years of the transplantation because of the additional risk for colon cancer associated with immunosuppression.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations aim to help CF adults, families, primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, and CF and transplantation centers address the issue of CRC screening. They differ from guidelines developed for the general population with respect to the recommended age of screening initiation, screening method, preparation, and the interval for repeat screening and surveillance.

Bowel preparation quality between hospitalized patients and outpatient colonoscopies

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Optimal bowel preparation is essential for a complete high-quality colonoscopy. We sought to determine whether an inpatient, as opposed to an ambulatory setting, would affect the quality of bowel preparation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted in a tertiary care university hospital. We collected demographic data from consecutive patients who underwent a colonoscopy for any reason between August 2007 and April 2012.

RESULTS

A total of 2999 patients were included in the study with a mean age of 50.36 (95%CI; 49.79-50.94). Males comprised 58.12%. Ambulatory patients had a higher rate of good bowel preparations (67.23% vs. 56.64%, P value < 0.01), a lower rate of poor bowel preparations (18.22% vs. 27.14%, P value < 0.01), and a higher rate of colonoscopy completion (86.79% vs. 77.59%, P value < 0.01). There was no difference between the rates of polyps detected (18.90% vs. 20.83%, P value = 0.22). The univariabe modeling factors associated with a sub-optimal bowel preparation were age OR 1.02 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.02), chronic kidney disease OR 2.34 (95% CI, 1.12 to 4.88), diabetes mellitus OR 2.00 (95% CI, 1.50 to 2.68), hypertension OR 1.48 (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.97), anemia OR 1.81 (95% CI, 1.33 to 2.47), and weight loss OR 1.41 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.96). Better bowel preparation was associated with colonoscopies performed in the outpatient setting OR 0.63 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.73).

CONCLUSION

Bowel preparation quality is affected by the setting in which it is performed. This result suggests that, when appropriate, colonoscopies should be performed on an outpatient basis. Further studies are required to replicate this finding.

A Comparison of Bowel Preparations for Colonoscopy in Constipated Adults

Clinical practice shows that patients with constipation are more likely to have a poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Consequences of poor bowel preparation include missed lesions, increased complication rates, and higher costs. Research on preparing constipated patients for colonoscopy with Food and Drug Administration-approved medications is scarce. This study included 372 patients and compared the effectiveness of high-volume (4 L) polyethylene glycol solution (GoLYTELY) with low-volume (2 L) polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbate (MoviPrep) in constipated and nonconstipated adults. Patients were considered constipated if constipation was recently documented in their medical history, they self-reported constipation, and/or they met Rome III criteria for constipation. Quality of bowel preparation was rated with the Aronchick scale. Of the 372 patients enrolled, 65 (17.5%) were constipated. Among those with constipation, 26.1% (n = 17) had a bowel preparation rated fair or poor. There was no statistically significant difference in quality of bowel preparation between GoLYTELY and MoviPrep in chronically constipated adults (p = .27). This study concluded that patients with constipation were more likely than nonconstipated patients to have poor bowel preparation, and there was no statistically significant difference between GoLYTELY and MoviPrep. Further study is needed to determine an adequate preparation regimen.

Randomized clinical trial comparing fixed-time split dosing and split dosing of oral Picosulfate regimen for bowel preparation

AIM

To compare the efficacy of fixed-time split dose and split dose of an oral sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation.

METHODS

This is study was prospective, randomized controlled study performed at a single Institution (2013-058). A total of 204 subjects were assigned to receive one of two sodium picosulfate regimens (i.e., fixed-time split or split) prior to colonoscopy. Main outcome measurements were bowel preparation quality and subject tolerability.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference between the fixed-time split dose regimen group and the split dose regimen group (Ottawa score mean 2.57 ± 1.91 vs 2.80 ± 2.51, P = 0.457). Cecal intubation time and physician’s satisfaction of inspection were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.428, P = 0.489). On subgroup analysis, for afternoon procedures, the fixed-time split dose regimen was equally effective as compared with the split dose regimen (Ottawa score mean 2.56 ± 1.78 vs 2.59 ± 2.27, P = 0.932). There was no difference in tolerability or compliance between the two groups. Nausea was 21.2% in the fixed-time split dose group and 14.3% in the split dose group (P = 0.136). Vomiting was 7.1% and 2.9% (P = 0.164), abdominal discomfort 7.1% and 4.8% (P = 0.484), dizziness 1% and 4.8% (P = 0.113), cold sweating 1% and 0% (P = 0.302) and palpitation 0% and 1% (P = 0.330), respectively. Sleep disturbance was two (2%) patients in the fixed-time split dose group and zero (0%) patient in the split dose preparation (P = 0.143) group.

CONCLUSION

A fixed-time split dose regimen with sodium picosulfate is not inferior to a split dose regimen for bowel preparation and equally effective for afternoon colonoscopy.

Computer-assisted instruction before colonoscopy is as effective as nurse counselling, a clinical pilot trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Better patient education prior to colonoscopy improves adherence to instructions for bowel preparation and leads to cleaner colons. We reasoned that computer assisted instruction (CAI) using video and 3 D animations followed by nurse contact maximizes the effectiveness of nurse counselling, increases proportion of clean colons and improves patient experience.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 Adults referred for colonoscopy in a high-volume endoscopy unit in the Netherlands were included. Exclusion criteria were illiteracy in Dutch and audiovisual handicaps. Patients were prospectively divided into 2 groups, 1 group received nurse counselling and 1 group received CAI and a nurse contact before colonoscopy. The main outcome, cleanliness of the colon during examination, was measured with Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). We assessed patient comfort and anxiety at 3 different time points.

RESULTS

 We included 385 patients: 197 received traditional nurse counselling and 188 received CAI. Overall patient response rates were 99 %, 76.4 % and 69.9 % respectively. Endoscopists scored cleanliness in 60.8 %. Comparative analysis of the 39.2 % of patients with missing scores showed no significant difference on age, gender or educational level. Baseline characteristics were evenly distributed over the groups. Bowel cleanliness was satisfactory and did not differ amongst groups: nurse vs. CAI group scores in BBPS: (6.54 ± 1.69 vs. 6.42 ± 1.62); OBPS: (6.07 ± 2.53 vs. 5.80 ± 2.90). Patient comfort scores were significantly higher (4.29 ± 0.62 vs. 4.42 ± 0.68) in the CAI group shortly before colonoscopy. Anxiety and knowledge scores were similar.

CONCLUSION

 CAI is a safe and practical tool to instruct patients before colonoscopy. We recommend the combination of CAI with a short nurse contact for daily practice.

Impact of Resected Colon Site on Quality of Bowel Preparation in Patients Who Underwent Prior Colorectal Resection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Various factors are known to be associated with quality of bowel preparation (QBP), but have rarely been investigated in patients with prior colorectal resection. The aim of this study was to investigate variables associated with bowel preparation in patients with prior colorectal resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 247 patients with prior colorectal resection and undergone surveillance colonoscopy were consecutively chosen. One clinician performed endoscopy for all patients. QBP was rated using Aronchick grade and was categorized as either satisfactory (Aronchick grades, 1 to 3) or unsatisfactory (Aronchick grades, 4 and 5). Factors associated with QBP were analyzed.

RESULTS

Unsatisfactory bowel preparation was detected in 49 patients (19.8%). There was no difference in QBP on the basis of sex, age, body mass index, hypertension history, diabetes mellitus history, smoking habits, time after surgery, resected colon length, or bowel preparation method. Operation method was marginally associated with QBP (P=0.056). When we dichotomized patients into right-side colon preservation or not, the right colon preservation group showed a significant association with poor QBP on univariate (22.3% vs. 7.5%, P=0.028) and multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-12.3; P=0.038).

CONCLUSION

Patients with a preserved right colon were associated with poor bowel preparations compared with patients who underwent right-side colon resection. When preparing patients with history of colorectal resection for colonoscopy, these differences should be considered for better bowel preparation.

Efficacy and safety of PICOPREP tailored dosing compared with PICOPREP day-before dosing for colon cleansing: a multi-centric randomised study

Background and study aims The success of any colonoscopy procedure depends upon the quality of bowel preparation. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a new tailored dosing (TD) regimen compared with the approved PICOPREP day-before dosing regimen (DBD) in the European Union. Patient and methods Patients (≥ 18 years) undergoing colonoscopy were randomised (2:1) to TD (Dose 1, 10 - 18 hours; Dose 2, 4 - 6 hours before colonoscopy) or DBD (Dose 1 before 8:00AM on the day before colonoscopy; Dose 2, 6 - 8 hours after Dose 1). The primary endpoint of overall colon cleansing efficacy was based on total Ottawa Scale (OS) scores (0 - 14, excellent-worst). The key secondary endpoint was a binary endpoint based on the ascending colon OS (success 0 or 1, failure [≥ 2]). Convenience and satisfaction were evaluated similar to the primary and key secondary endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. Results Use of the PICOPREP TD regimen resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the mean total Ottawa Scale score compared to the PICOPREP DBD regimen (-3.93, 95 % confidence intervals [CI]: - 4.99, - 2.97; P < 0.0001) in the intent-to-treat analysis set. The PICOPREP TD regimen also resulted in a statistically significant increase in the odds of achieving an ascending colon OS score ≤ 1, compared to the PICOPREP DBD regimen (estimated odds ratio 9.18, 95 % CI: 4.36, 19.32; P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (12 % (TD) and 5.7 % (DBD), respectively, P = 0.2988). The convenience and satisfaction were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion The TD regimen was superior to the DBD regimen for overall and ascending colon cleansing efficacy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02239692.

Enhanced education for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A state-of-the-art review

Colonoscopy remains the mainstay in diagnosing and monitoring colorectal cancer and other colorectal lesions. The diagnostic efficiency of colonoscopy greatly depends on the quality of bowel preparation, which is closely associated with the patient's compliance with the preparation instructions. In addition, the procedural requirements of bowel preparation are often complex and difficult for patients to comprehend and memorize, especially those with lower health literacy and motivation. Therefore, in recent years, many educational methods have been developed, such as educational booklets, cartoon visual aids, educational videos, short message service, telephone, social media and smart phone applications. These educational methods have significantly improved compliance with the instructions for bowel preparation and ultimately promoted the visualization of the colon in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

A Customized Mobile Application in Colonoscopy Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Adherence with diet and prescribed purgative is essential for proper cleansing with low-volume bowel preparations. The aim of this work was to assess the effect of a customized mobile application (App) on adherence and quality of bowel preparation.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty (160) eligible patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy were randomly assigned to paper (control) or App-based instructions. The preparation consisted of low-fiber diet for 2 days, clear fluids for one day and split-dose sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPS). Before colonoscopy, information was collected regarding adherence with, and utility of the provided instructions. The colonoscopists, blinded to assignment, graded bowel preparation using the Aronchick, Ottawa, and Chicago preparation scales. The primary endpoint was adherence with instructions. Quality of preparation was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

No difference in overall adherence or bowel cleanliness was observed between the study arms. Adherence was reported in 82.4% of App vs. 73.4% of controls (P=0.40). An adequate bowel preparation on the Aronchick scale was noted in 77.2 vs. 82.5%, respectively (P=0.68). Mean scores on the Ottawa and Chicago scales were also similar. Gender, age, time of colonoscopy, and BMI did not influence preparation or adherence. Compliance with the clear fluid diet component was noted in 94% of patients with BMI<30 vs. 77% with BMI≥30 (P<0.01). SPS was well tolerated by 81.9% of patients. The App was user-friendly and received higher overall rating in this respect than paper instructions (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

SPS is well tolerated and effective for bowel cleansing regardless of instruction method. Customized smartphone applications are effective, well-accepted and could replace standard paper instructions for bowel preparation.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02410720.

The gut microbiota and gastrointestinal surgery

Surgery involving the gastrointestinal tract continues to prove challenging because of the persistence of unpredictable complications such as anastomotic leakage and life-threatening infections. Removal of diseased intestinal segments results in substantial catabolic stress and might require complex reconstructive surgery to maintain the functional continuity of the intestinal tract. As gastrointestinal surgery necessarily involves a breach of an epithelial barrier colonized by microorganisms, preoperative intestinal antisepsis is used to reduce infection-related complications. The current approach to intestinal antisepsis varies widely across institutions and countries with little understanding of its mechanism of action, effect on the gut microbiota and overall efficacy. Many of the current approaches to intestinal antisepsis before gastrointestinal surgery run counter to emerging concepts of intestinal microbiota contributing to immune function and recovery from injury. Here, we review evidence outlining the role of gut microbiota in recovery from gastrointestinal surgery, particularly in the development of infections and anastomotic leak. To make surgery safer and further reduce complications, a molecular, genetic and functional understanding of the response of the gastrointestinal tract to alterations in its microbiota is needed. Methods can then be developed to preserve the health-promoting functions of the microbiota while at the same time suppressing their harmful effects.

Impact of Personalised Patient Education on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial

Background

Adequate bowel preparation is one of the most important quality factors of colonoscopy. Our goal was to analyse the impact of personalised patient education on bowel cleansing preparation for colonoscopy.

Methods

We performed a single-blinded, single-centre, prospective randomised trial, where patients were either allocated to a control group, where they received some predefined oral and written information on bowel preparation from the gastroenterologist, or to an intervention group, where patients received additional personalised instructions for bowel preparation and diet from a nurse. The primary outcome was the quality of bowel preparation (Aronchick scale).

Results

A total of 229 patients were randomised; 113 to the control group and 116 to the intervention group. In intention-to-treat analysis, bowel preparation was adequate in 62% (95% CI 53-70) of colonoscopies in the intervention group and in 35% (95% CI 26-44) of colonoscopies in the control group (p < 0.001). The absolute risk reduction was 27%, the relative risk was 1.77, and the number needed to treat was 4. Subgroup analysis showed a significant impact of personalised education in patients under 65 years (67 vs. 35%; p < 0.001), in males (60 vs. 33%; p = 0.003), in those with higher educational levels (68 vs. 37%; p = 0.002), in those living in urban areas (68 vs. 40%; p = 0.004), and in those with previous colonoscopy (68 vs. 40%; p = 0.001). Risk factors for inadequate preparation were: male gender (OR = 2.1; 95% CI 1.1-4.1), diabetes mellitus (OR = 3.8; 95% CI 1.2-11.6), chronic constipation (OR = 3.7; 95% CI 1.7-8.2), absence of prior abdominal surgery (OR = 2.2; 95% CI 1.2-4.1), and being in the control group (OR = 2.5; 95% CI 1.4-4.4).

Conclusions

Personalised patient education on bowel preparation for colonoscopy significantly improved the quality of bowel preparation.

Split-dose sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate colonoscopy preparation achieves lower residual gastric volume with higher cleansing effectiveness than a previous-day regimen

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

It is known that sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate (SPMC) bowel preparations are effective, well tolerated and safe, and that split-dosing is more effective for colon cleansing than previous-day regimens. Anesthetic guidelines consider that residual gastric fluid is independent of clear liquid fasting times. However, reluctance to use split-dosing persists. This may be due to limited data on residual gastric fluid volumes (RGFVs) and split-dosing bowel preparations, and that these may not be perceived as standard clear liquids. Furthermore, no studies are available on RGFV/residual gastric fluid pH (RGFpH) and SPMC. We aimed to evaluate the cleansing effectiveness and the RGFV/RGFpH achieved after an SPMC split-dosing regimen compared with a SPMC previous-day regimen.

METHODS

This was a single-center observational study. A total of 328 outpatients scheduled for simultaneous EGD and colonoscopy and following a split-dosing or previous-day regimen of SPMC were included. We prospectively measured colon cleanliness by using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale, RGFV, and RGFpH.

RESULTS

Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale scores for overall, right, mid-colon, and colon fluid were significantly better in the split-dosing group. In the split-dosing group, the 3- to 4-hour fasting time consistently achieved the best cleansing quality. RGFV was significantly lower in the split-dosing group (11.09 vs 18.62, P < .001). No significant differences in RGFpH were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Split-dosing SPMC provides higher colon cleansing quality with lower RGFVs than previous-day SPMC regimens. SPMC in split-dosing acts exactly as a standard clear liquid acts, and thus anesthetic guidelines on this issue may be applied with no concerns.

Meta-analysis: The effect of patient education on bowel preparation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The proportion of outpatients with inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is high owing to patient unawareness of its importance and poor adherence to instructions. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of educational intervention on the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature review identified randomized controlled trials measuring the effect of educational intervention on the quality of bowel preparation. Two reviewers independently screened relevant articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was the quality of each bowel preparation before colonoscopy, using a particular assessment scale. The secondary outcomes were polyp detection rates during the procedure and the need for a repeat colonoscopy due to incomplete examination.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. In all, 2885 patients were enrolled, with 1458 receiving education and 1427 assigned to the control group. An educational intervention before colonoscopy significantly improved bowel preparation (relative risk [RR] = 1.22; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.10 - 1.36), however, no significant differences were identified in polyp detection rates (RR = 1.14; 95 %CI 0.87 - 1.51) or the need for repeat colonoscopy (RR = 0.52; 95 %CI 0.25 - 1.04) between the groups. Asymmetry in the appearance of the funnel plot and the result of Egger test (P < 0.001) suggested that publication bias existed.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from these randomized controlled trials shows that a brief counseling session with patients before colonoscopy ensures better bowel preparation. However, evidence is insufficient to assess improvements in polyp detection rate and avoidance of a repeat colonoscopy. Despite these encouraging observations, this meta-analysis had some limitations, including potential publication bias and significant heterogeneity of the types of bowel purgatives. These results should be interpreted with caution.

Polyethylene glycol plus an oral sulfate solution as a bowel cleansing regimen for colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective, single-arm study in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVES

As with colonoscopy, adequate bowel cleansing is essential prior to colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). Because CCE requires that the capsule traverse the entire gastrointestinal tract during the examination, laxative 'boosters' are used. The objective of this prospective, single-center, single-arm study was to evaluate the safety of a bowel preparation consisting of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus an oral sulfate solution.

METHODS

Subjects were healthy volunteers aged 50-75 years old with normal baseline serum chemistry. The bowel preparation consisted of 4 Senna tablets, 4 liters of PEG (split dose), 10 mg metoclopramide, 2 oral sulfate solution boosters (6 oz. and 3 oz.), and 10 mg bisacodyl. Serum chemistry was performed at baseline, following PEG intake, 24 hours after bisacodyl administration, and at 7 days post procedure (in subjects with abnormal 24 hour results). The primary endpoints were the percentage of subjects with a clinically significant change in serum chemistry at the last test and the adverse event (AE) rate.

RESULTS

A total of 25 subjects were enrolled. The serum chemistry was normal in all subjects at the final evaluation. One subject showed a slight elevation in creatinine (1.08 mg/dl 7 days post procedure from 0.84 mg/dl at baseline), deemed not clinically significant. Another subject had a transient elevation in serum creatinine (from 1.01 mg/dl at baseline to 1.45 mg/dl at 24 hours after the bowel preparation); values returned to near baseline at 7 days post procedure (1.06 mg/dl). There were no serious AEs, three moderate AEs related to the bowel preparation (nausea, headache, elevated creatinine) and two mild unrelated AEs (chills, abdominal cramping).

CONCLUSIONS

A bowel cleansing regimen of PEG plus an oral sulfate solution can be used in healthy volunteers. These data provide support for the continued study of this regimen in future CCE clinical trials and in medical practice.

Education for Ward Nurses Influences the Quality of Inpatient's Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

Although adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for colonoscopy, preparation among inpatients is often suboptimal. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of ward nurse education on the quality of bowel preparation of inpatients.A prospective, double-blinded, non-randomized, controlled study was performed. Expert endoscopists provided enhanced education to nurses who belonged to an "educated ward" followed by training that was repeated every week for 1 month. The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation, which was based on the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS). Patient compliance and their subjective feelings and the factors affecting inadequate bowel preparation were also analyzed.One hundred three inpatients in the educated ward and 102 patients in the control ward were enrolled. Baseline data were comparable between the 2 wards. The mean values of the total OBPS scores were 4.42 ± 2.23 and 6.15 ± 2.38 in the educated and control wards, respectively (P < 0.001). The rate of poor preparation (OBPS ≥ 6) in the educated ward was significantly lower than that in the control ward (31.1% vs 58.8%, P < 0.001). Compliance with preparation and diet instructions in the educated ward was superior to that in the control ward (P<0.001). Control patients were more likely to be anxious before colonoscopy (P < 0.001), whereas patients in the educated ward showed higher level of satisfaction (P = 0.001) and better sleep quality (P < 0.001). A lack of ward nurse education (OR 2.365, P = 0.025), constipation (OR 6.517, P < 0.001), and insufficient water ingestion (OR 2.044, P = 0.042) were independently associated with inadequate bowel preparation among inpatients.Ward nurse education effectively improved the quality of bowel preparation, and relevant colonoscopic outcomes among inpatients. Additional efforts are needed to control constipation and to encourage additional water ingestion in inpatients for better bowel preparation.

[Bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Any significant progress on the horizon?]

Colonoscopy is the method of choice for colorectal cancer screening. To be effective, screening colonoscopy must have high quality standards. The key element is the quality of the preparation. However, up to 20% of patients are inadequately prepared and, at present, anterograde washing is the least tolerated part of the procedure. In the choice of preparation, safety is a prerequisite and efficacy is a priority. Tolerance is a secondary but nevertheless influential factor in the quality of preparation and has consequently been the primary focus of many recent studies. In the last few years, a rapidly increasing number of studies have evaluated new drugs, dosages and adjuvant therapies to improve efficacy and tolerability. These studies have collaterally shown that inadequate preparation and lack of adherence to the prescribed regimen can be partially predicted, making it essential to identify this patient subgroup and invest the necessary effort in their instruction. New individualized and flexible approaches are expected for the different clinical scenarios. The search for the ideal colonoscopy preparation, which would be tolerable, safe and above all effective, remains open.