Comparison of Bowel Cleansing Efficacy, Safety, Bowel Movement Kinetics, and Patient Tolerability of Same-Day and Split-Dose Bowel Preparation Using 4 L of Polyethylene Glycol: A Prospective Randomized Study

Effect of bowel preparation completion time on bowel cleansing efficacy: Prospective randomized controlled trial of different bowel preparation completion times precolonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

The elapse time between the completion of bowel cleansing and colonoscopy is one of the important factors for proper bowel cleansing. Although several studies have reported that a short time interval resulted in a favorable bowel cleansing, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been conducted to determine the effect of the elapse time. Consequently, we performed an RCT to investigate the efficacy of bowel preparation of participants who underwent colonoscopy according to the different time intervals between the completion of bowel preparation and colonoscopy.

METHODS

In this single-center RCT, study participants were randomized to complete bowel preparation either 2-4 h or 4-8 h before colonoscopy. The primary end-point was successful bowel preparation, rated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

RESULTS

A total of 504 individuals were included (2-4 h, 255; 4-8 h, 249). The rate of successful bowel preparation in the 2-4 h group showed noninferiority compared with that of the 4-8 h group (97.6% vs. 95.2%; rate difference, 2.5% [-0.8% to 5.7%]; Pfor noninferiority < 0.001, Pfor superiority = 0.136). The rate for perfect cleansing (a BBPS score of 9) was higher in the 2-4 h group (56.5% vs. 39.8%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

When bowel cleansing was finished 2-4 h before the start of colonoscopy, the overall bowel cleansing was noninferior, and perfect cleansing was superior, compared to that when cleansing was finished 4-8 h before colonoscopy.

Safety of cold snare resection techniques for removal of polyps in the small colon in patients taking clopidogrel and aspirin: a Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Polypectomy is a procedure associated with a high risk of bleeding. Guidelines recommend uninterrupted aspirin use during polypectomy, whereas cessation of clopidogrel 5 to 7 days before polypectomy is recommended. The cold snare resection (CSR) technique, with or without submucosal injection, is considered safer than conventional polypectomy using electrocoagulation for postpolypectomy bleeding. In this study, we compared the bleeding adverse events associated with CSR between clopidogrel and aspirin users.

METHODS

This multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted in 5 academic hospitals in Korea and included clopidogrel and aspirin users who underwent polypectomy. Antiplatelet agents were used without interruption, with ≤3 days of interruption defined as continuous use. The primary endpoint was delayed bleeding, which was defined as bleeding occurring several hours after polypectomy, whereas immediate bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring hemostasis 2 minutes after polypectomy. Risk factors for immediate bleeding were investigated for each polyp.

RESULTS

Among the 263 patients (clopidogrel, 129; aspirin, 134), 509 underwent polypectomies. The rates of delayed bleeding per patient in the clopidogrel and aspirin groups were .8% and .7%, respectively, meeting noninferiority (rate difference, .03%; 95% confidence interval, -2.07 to 2.13). Hemostasis was achieved in 100 patients who underwent polypectomy (19.8%). Immediate bleeding risk factors were female sex, end-stage renal disease, submucosal injection before resection, and polyp size ≥5 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter prospective study demonstrated the safety of CSR in patients treated with uninterrupted clopidogrel and aspirin. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04328987.).

Comparison of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid and 4 L Polyethylene Glycol in Elderly Patients Aged 60-79: A Prospective Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

The bowel-cleansing efficacy and safety of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (2L PEG + Asc) has rarely been studied in the elderly population. In this randomized trial, we compared the bowel cleanliness, safety, and tolerability of 2L PEG + Asc with those of 4 L PEG in an elderly population aged 60-79.

METHODS

Study participants were randomized either to 2L PEG + Asc or 4L PEG. The primary endpoint was the success rate of bowel preparation, using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Before colonoscopy, all participants were questioned about adverse events and tolerability regarding purgative ingestion.

RESULTS

A total of 347 individuals were enrolled (2L PEG + Asc, 174; 4L PEG, 173). Mean age in the 2L PEG + Asc and the 4L PEG was 69.3 ± 5.6 and 69.3 ± 5.0, respectively (P = 0.917). The rate for successful bowel cleansing was comparable between the 2L PEG + Asc (92%) and the 4L PEG (96%, P = 0.118). Total ingested liquid including purgative and water was lower in the 2L PEG + Asc group (2.9 L) than in the 4L PEG group (4.2 L, P < 0.001). The tolerability of purgative was superior in the 2L PEG + Asc (overall satisfaction, P < 0.001; willingness to reuse, P < 0.001). There were no serious adverse events during the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The bowel-cleansing efficacy of 2L PEG + Asc was comparable to that of 4L PEG. Tolerability was superior in the 2L PEG + Asc group. For older people, 2L PEG + Asc is an efficacious and safe bowel cleanser. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0004123).

Same-day single-dose vs large-volume split-dose regimens of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Split-dose regimens (SpDs) of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) have been established as the “gold standard” for bowel preparation; however, its use is limited by the large volumes of fluids required and sleep disturbance associated with night doses. Meanwhile, the same-day single-dose regimens (SSDs) of PEG has been recommended as an alternative; however, its superiority compared to other regimens is a matter of debate.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and tolerability between SSDs and large-volume SpDs PEG for bowel preparation.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, RCA, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomized trials comparing (2 L/4 L) SSDs to large-volume (4 L/3 L) SpDs PEG-based regimens, regardless of adjuvant laxative use. The pooled analysis of relative risk ratio and mean difference was calculated for bowel cleanliness, sleep disturbance, willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation and adverse effects. A random effects model or fixed-effects model was chosen based on heterogeneity analysis among studies.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were included. There was no statistically significant difference of adequate bowel preparation (relative risk = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.92-1.02) (14 trials), right colon Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference = 0.00; 95%CI: -0.04, 0.03) (9 trials) and right colon Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference = 0.04; 95%CI: -0.27, 0.34) (5 trials) between (2 L/4 L) SSDs and large-volume (4 L/3 L) SpDs, regardless of adjuvant laxative use. The pooled analysis favored the use of SSDs with less sleep disturbance (relative risk = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.40, 0.68) and lower incidence of abdominal pain (relative risk = 0.75; 95%CI: 0.62, 0.90). During subgroup analysis, patients that received low-volume (2 L) SSDs showed more willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation than SpDs (P < 0.05). No significant difference in adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting and bloating, was found between the two arms (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of adjuvant laxative use, the (2 L/4 L) SSD PEG-based arm was considered equal or better than the large-volume (≥ 3 L) SpDs PEG regimen in terms of bowel cleanliness and tolerability. Patients that received low-volume (2 L) SSDs showed more willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation due to the low-volume fluid requirement and less sleep disturbance.

The Efficacy of Senna Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The quality of bowel preparation is an extremely important determinant of colonoscopy results. However, the efficacy of senna regimens in improving bowel cleanliness is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize data on whether using a senna bowel preparation regimen enhances the bowel cleanliness. We searched Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases (from the inception to August 2021). The primary efficacy outcome was bowel cleanliness. Secondary outcomes included patient compliance, tolerance, and adverse events. Eleven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (3,343 patients. Overall, we found no significant differences in bowel cleanliness between the senna regimen and other bowel preparation regimens (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.02 [0.63, 1.67], p = 0.93). There was significant difference in tolerance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.66 [1.08, 2.54], p = .02) and compliance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.05 [1.42, 6.55], p = .004). The senna regimen yielded a significantly greater proportion of no nausea (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.45, 2.32]) and vomiting (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.65 [0.81, 3.35]). Compared with other bowel preparation regimens, the senna regimen may be effective and safe in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy, with superior compliance and tolerance.

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 unmet needs for identifying the ideal bowel preparation

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

Effect of prophylactic clip application for the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding of large pedunculated colonic polyps: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prophylactic application of a hemoclip has been suggested as an alternative to the use of an endoloop for the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) when resecting large, pedunculated colorectal polyps. Therefore, this multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigated the efficacy of prophylactic hemoclip application to reduce PPB during the resection of large pedunculated polyps.

METHODS

Large pedunculated polyps (≥10 mm in head diameter) were eligible for inclusion. Polyps were randomized into a study arm (where clips were applied before resection) and a control arm (without pretreatment). The primary outcome was the rate of PPB in each group. PPB included immediate PPB (IPPB) and delayed PPB (DPPB). IPPB was defined as blood oozing (≥1 minute) or active spurting occurring immediately after polyp resection. DPPB was defined as rectal bleeding, occurring after completion of the colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In total, 238 polyps from 204 patients were randomized into the clip arm (119 polyps) or the control arm (119 polyps). Overall bleeding adverse events were observed in 20 cases (IPPB, 16; DPPB, 4). The rate of overall PPB, IPPB, and DPPB was 8.4%, 6.7%, and 1.7%, respectively, for all polyps. The rate of overall PPB (clip 4.2% vs control 12.6%, P = .033) and IPPB (clip 2.5% vs control 10.9%, P = .017) was significantly lower in the clip arm than the control arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping before resecting large pedunculated polyps can reduce overall PPB and IPPB compared with no prior treatment. Therefore, prophylactic clipping may be considered before resection of large pedunculated polyps. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02156193.).

Smartphone education improves embarrassment, bowel preparation, and satisfaction with care in patients receiving colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trail

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is considered a safe and effective tool for detecting colorectal cancer. Nevertheless, the proportion of patients are hesitating to receive colonoscopy. Smartphone education may decrease the barrier of colonoscopy. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of smartphone education in colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, controlled study to examine the effectiveness of smartphone education on embarrassment, bowel preparation, and satisfaction in colonoscopy. The patients' embarrassment was measured by the colonoscopy embarrassment scale. The quality of the bowel preparation was evaluated by gastroenterologists according to the Aronchik Scale. The satisfaction of colonoscopy care was assessed by a satisfaction scale developed by the authors.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were analyzed in the smartphone education and control groups (n = 75 in each group). The smartphone education group reported fewer embarrassment (B = -2.78, P = .02) than those of the control group, the patients who were older (B = .15, P = .001) and who were male (B = 2.91, P = .003) showed higher embarrassment. Additionally, smartphone education group were likely to have better colon preparation (odds ratio = 2.46, 95% confidence interval: 1.20-5.02) than that of the control group. Smartphone education also improved the satisfaction with care (β = 4.60, P < .001), and above normal body mass index decreased the satisfaction with care (β = -0.19, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Smartphone education improves embarrassment, bowel preparation, and satisfaction with care in patients receiving colonoscopy.

Postgastrectomy gastric cancer patients are at high risk for colorectal neoplasia: a case control study

Background/Aims

Several studies have shown that colorectal neoplasms (CRN) including colorectal cancer (CRC) may be prevalent in patients with gastric cancer. However, in most of these studies, colonoscopy to investigate the prevalence of CRN was performed prior to surgery. We aimed to investigate whether CRN was more prevalent in postgastrectomy gastric cancer patients than in healthy individuals.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of those patients within a cohort of gastric cancer patients with gastrectomy who underwent colonoscopy between 2016 and 2017. Controls age- and sex-matched with gastric cancer patients at a 2:1 ratio were identified among those who underwent colonoscopy at a health-promotion center. The frequencies of CRN, advanced CRN (ACRN), and CRC among patients with gastrectomy were compared with those in the control subjects. A total of 744 individuals (gastric cancer, 248; control, 496) were included.

Results

The rates of CRN and ACRN in the gastric cancer group were higher than those in the healthy individuals (CRN, 47.6% vs. 34.7%, P<0.001; ACRN, 16.9% vs. 10.9%, P=0.020). The rate of CRC was comparable between the 2 groups (2.0% vs. 0.6%, P=0.125). Multivariate analysis identified previous gastrectomy for gastric cancer and male sex as significant risk factors for (A)CRN.

Conclusions

CRN and ACRN were more prevalent in patients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer than in the control group. Regular surveillance colonoscopy at appropriate intervals is indicated after gastrectomy.

Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in 2020: A Look at the Past, Present, and Future

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the USA. Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening and can offer both diagnosis and therapy. The bowel preparation remains a significant barrier for patients who need to undergo colonoscopy and is often cited as the most dreaded aspect of the colonoscopy process. Inadequate bowel preparations still occur in 10-25% of colonoscopies, and this in turn can lead to increased procedural times, lower cecal intubation rates, and shorter interval between colonoscopies. From a quality standpoint, it is imperative that we do what we can to decrease the rate of inadequate bowel preparations. This review will focus on recent data regarding bowel preparation and offers a glimpse into what may be coming in the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent advances in the field have been made to improve tolerability of bowel preparations and allow for more adequate colonoscopies. Newer, lower volume, flavored preparations, the use of adjuncts, and using split-dose preparations all can help with tolerability, compliance, and, in turn, preparation quality. Edible bowel preparations may become available in the near future. Early data on the use of artificial intelligence for assessment of preparation quality has been promising. Additionally, utilization of smartphone technology for education prior to the bowel preparation has also been shown to improve the adequacy of bowel preparations.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing efforts to improve the tolerability and palatability of colonoscopy bowel preparations are important from a quality improvement standpoint to ensure the adequacy of colonoscopy. Incorporating patient-specific factors and comorbidities is also an essential aspect of improving the quality of bowel preparation. Leveraging technology to better communicate with and educate patients on the bowel preparation process is likely to play a larger role in the coming years.