3-L split-dose is superior to 2-L polyethylene glycol in bowel cleansing in Chinese population: a multicenter randomized, controlled trial

3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to 2 L polyethylene glycol in colonoscopic bowel preparation in relatively high-BMI (≥ 24 kg/m2) individuals: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Whether body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for poor bowel preparation is controversial, and the optimal bowel preparation regimen for people with a high BMI is unclear.

METHODS

We prospectively included 710 individuals with high BMIs (≥ 24 kg/m2) who were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy from January to November 2021 at 7 hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated into 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) group (n=353) and 2 L PEG group (n=357). The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation, and the secondary outcomes included Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and adverse reactions during bowel preparation. Furthermore, we did exploratory subgroup analyses for adequate bowel preparation.

RESULTS

After enrollment, 15 individuals didn't undergo colonoscopy, finally 345 participants took 3 L split-dose PEG regimen, and 350 participants took 2 L PEG regimen for colonoscopic bowel preparation. 3 L split-dose PEG regimen was superior to 2 L PEG regimen in the rate of adequate bowel preparation (81.2% vs. 74.9%, P = 0.045), BBPS score (6.71±1.15 vs. 6.37±1.31, P < 0.001), and the rate of polyp detection (62.0% vs. 52.9%, P = 0.015). The cecal intubation rate was similar in both groups (99.7%). Regarding adverse reactions, individuals were more likely to feel nausea in the 3 L PEG group (30.9% vs. 19.3%; P = 0.001); however, the degree was mild. In the subgroup analysis for adequate bowel preparation, 3 L split-dose PEG regimen performed better than 2 L PEG regimen in the overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2 ) (P = 0.006) and individuals with constipation (P = 0.044), while no significant differences were observed in relatively normal (BMI 24-24.9 kg/m2) (P = 0.593) and obese individuals (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) (P = 0.715).

CONCLUSIONS

3 L split-dose PEG regimen is superior to 2 L PEG regimen for colonoscopic Bowel Preparation in relatively high-BMI individuals, especially overweight individuals (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2 ).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR2000039068). The date of first registration, 15/10/2020, http://www.chictr.org.cn.

Safety and efficacy comparison of polyethylene glycol, hemp seed oil, and 5% sugar brine for bowel preparation in older patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer among the middle-aged and elderly is gradually increasing in China. Colonoscopy is an effective method for the early diagnosis of colorectal cancer, and bowel preparation is one of many important factors affecting colonoscopy. Although there are many studies on intestinal cleansers, the results are not ideal. There is evidence that hemp seed oil has certain potential effects in intestinal cleansing, but prospective studies on this topic are still lacking.

METHODS

This is a randomized, double-blind, single-center clinical study. We randomly assigned 690 participants to groups each administered 3 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG), 30 mL of hemp seed oil and 2 L of PEG, or 30 mL of hempseed oil, 2 L of PEG, and 1000 mL of 5% sugar brine. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was considered the primary outcome measure. We evaluated the interval between consumption of bowel preparation and first bowel movement. Secondary indicators included the time of cecal intubation, detection rate of polyps and adenomas, willingness to repeat the same bowel preparation, whether the protocol was tolerated, and whether there were adverse reactions during bowel preparation and were evaluated after counting the total number of bowel movements.

DISCUSSION

This study aimed to test the hypothesis that hemp seed oil (30 mL) increases the quality of bowel preparation and reduces the amount of PEG. Previously, we found that its combination with 5% sugar brine can reduce the occurrence of adverse reactions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200057626. Prospectively registered on March 15, 2022.

Low-dose of magnesium sulfate solution was not inferior to standard regime of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in elderly patients: a randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Large polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a standard regimen for bowel preparation. However, elderly patients suffered from adverse events. This study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral magnesium sulfate solution (MSS) vs standard PEG in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

Elderly patients aged 60-90 years, from two endoscopic centers, were enrolled in China. Patients were randomized to take a low dose of MSS or a standard PEG regime in a split-dose regime. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with adequate bowel preparation, which was defined as the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) ≥6 and each segmental BBPS was ≥2. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate (ADR), safety, adverse events, cecal intubation rate, willingness to repeat BP, and so on.

RESULTS

1174 elderly patients were randomly allocated to the MSS group (n = 588) or the standard group (n = 586). Adequate BP was achieved in 94.0% of patients in the MSS group and 92.5% in the control (p = .287). ADR was also comparable between the two groups (43.0% and 39.9%, p = .282). Compared with the standard group, MSS group reported less abdominal discomfort (1.7% vs 6.0%), less nausea (13.6% vs 21.0%) and vomiting (1.2% vs 4.2%). The change in serum potassium levels after preparation in the standard group was significantly lower than that in the MSS group (-0.19 ± 0.08 vs -0.41 ± 0.11, p = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose of MSS was not inferior to the standard PEG regime in terms of bowel preparation quality for elderly patients. Low-dose MSS offered fewer adverse events and better tolerability. It is a preferable choice for the elderly to undergo bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04948567.

Impact of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist liraglutide and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin on bowel cleaning and gastrointestinal symptoms in type 2 diabetes

Objective: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) profoundly affect the gastrointestinal motor system, which may increase the incidence of inadequate bowel cleaning and gastrointestinal symptoms. Hence, this observational study mainly aimed to assess the influence of GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and DPP-4i sitagliptin on bowel preparation in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Method: This observational study consecutively enrolled T2DM scheduled for a colonoscopy. Participants were prospectively separated into the liraglutide group (n = 120), sitagliptin group (n = 120), and control group (n = 120) based on the current hypoglycemic regimen. 3L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimens were used for bowel preparation. Experienced gastrointestinal endoscopists conducted colonoscopies. Lawrance Bowel-Preparation Tolerability Questionnaire and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) were conducted to assess bowel cleaning quality, tolerability, and safety. Results: The incidence of inadequate bowel cleaning was 17.5% in the liraglutide group, 20.5% in the sitagliptin group, and 21.7% in the control group. The difference among the three groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.927). Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in the mean BBPS, cecal intubation time, and polyp-detecting rates among the three groups (all p > 0.0.05). Nausea, vomiting, and bloating scores were increased in the liraglutide group compared with the other two groups (p < 0.05), whereas most were mild or very mild. Subgroup analyses showed that the incidence of inadequate bowel cleaning in T2DM with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) was increased in the liraglutide group compared with the sitagliptin group (61.3% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.022) and control group (61.3% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.025). Conclusion: GLP-1RA liraglutide or DPP-4i sitagliptin did not significantly increase the incidence of inadequate bowel cleaning and gastrointestinal symptoms during bowel preparation. Liraglutide may increase the incidence of inadequate bowel preparation in patients with DPN. This study reveal that more attention and aggressive bowel preparation regimens should be given to the T2DM with DPN. Clinical Trial Registration: (https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx), identifier (ChiCTR2200056148).

Efficacy and Tolerability of Two Different Low-Volume Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Electrolytes Solution Bowel Preparation for Morning Colonoscopy

METHODS

A total of 120 patients were randomized to receive either the control group (n = 64) or the experimental group (n = 65). Patients in the control group adopted the low-volume split-dose regimen one, and patients in the experimental group adopted the low-volume split-dose regimen two. Those randomized to regimen one were instructed to take 0.75 L PEG two hours after dinner the day before the colonoscopy and 1.5 L PEG 4 hours before the colonoscopy. Patients assigned to regimen two were invited to consume 1.5 L PEG two hours after dinner the day before the colonoscopy and 0.75 L PEG 4 hours before the colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation, rated according to a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), represented the primary outcome measure. Tolerability, satisfaction, and lesions detection rated were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the transverse colon and right colon scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). The low-volume split-dose regimen two showed a higher success rate for cleansing of the right colon and overall colon (P < 0.05). For the comparison of the patients' bowel tolerance, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding thirst, abdominal pain or abdominal discomfort, abdominal distension, dizziness or headache, anal discomfort, and sleep disturbance (P > 0.05). However, regimen two had significantly less nausea, vomiting, and fatigue than regimen one (24.62% vs. 42.19%, P=0.034; 10.77% vs. 25.00%, P=0.035; 6.15% vs. 21.88%, P=0.010, respectively). Patient-reported satisfaction and willingness to repeat the bowel preparation were significantly higher for low-volume split-dose regimen two than for low-volume split-dose regimen one (P=0.011; P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

In early morning colonoscopies, the bowel-cleansing efficacy and patient tolerability of low-volume split-dose regimen two were superior to low-volume split-dose regimen one.

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.

Effectiveness of low-volume split-dose versus same-day morning polyethylene glycol regimen for adequacy of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Successful completion of colonoscopy depends largely on the quality of bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a commonly used preparation for colonoscopy. The timing of bowel preparation has evolved from previous day evening to the currently recommended split-dose regimen. It was observed that consumption of entire or a portion of PEG on the previous day can interfere with work and sleep. Hence, we designed this single-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of the same-day PEG as compared with lowvolume split-dose PEG in patients undergoing late morning colonoscopy.

METHODS

A total of 384 patients were randomized to same-day (SD group; n = 192) and split-dose (SPL group; n = 192) bowel preparation. The patients in both the groups received bisacodyl 10 mg at bedtime on the day prior to colonoscopy. The patients in the SD group took 2 L of PEG between 5:00 AM and 7:00 AM on the day of colonoscopy. The SPL group took 1 L of PEG between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM on the preceding day and another liter between 6:00 AM and 7:00 AM on the day of colonoscopy. The adequacy of bowel preparation was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Tolerability was scored by recording symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, bloating, and abdominal pain. Acceptability was based on the overall satisfaction, willingness to repeat the same preparation, and interference with sleep on the preceding night.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range, [IQR]) BBPS in the SD group was 8 (6-9) while that in the SPL group was 6 (5-8) and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Similarly, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the SD group (86%) achieved adequate bowel preparation (BBPS score ≥ 6) when compared to those in the SPL group (73.4%) (p = 0.002). Tolerability as assessed by nausea, vomiting, bloating, and abdominal pain was similar in both the groups. There was also no significant difference with respect to overall satisfaction of taking bowel preparation (p = 0.33) or willingness to repeat the same regimen (p = 0.37) between the two groups. Patients in the SPL group had more interference with sleep on the preceding night (54% vs. 14.5%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Same-day morning PEG regimen can be considered an effective, well-tolerated, and acceptable bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Cleansing efficacy and safety of bowel preparation protocol using sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate considering subjective experiences: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Research data from patient reports indicate that the least bearable part of colonoscopy is the administration of laxatives for bowel preparation.

AIM

To observe the intestinal cleansing efficacy and safety of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate and to discuss the patients’ experiences due to the procedure.

METHODS

Subjects hospitalized in the International Medical Center Ward of Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China, from April 29 to October 29, 2020, for whom the colonoscopy was planned, were enrolled. Bowel preparation was performed using sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate. The effect of bowel cleansing was evaluated according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale, defecation conditions and adverse reactions were recorded, and the comfort level and subjective satisfaction concerning medication were evaluated by the visual analogue scale/score (VAS).

RESULTS

The bowel preparation procedure was planned for all patients enrolled, which included 42 males and 22 females. The results showed an average liquid rehydration volume of 3000 mL, an average onset of action for the first dose at 89.04 min, an average number of bowel movements of 4.3 following the first dose, an average onset of action for the second dose at 38.90 min and an average number of bowel movements of 5.0 after the second dose. The total average Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale score was 3.6, with 93.55% of bowel preparations in the “qualified” and 67.74% in the “excellent” grade. The average VAS score of effect on sleep was 0, and the average VAS score of perianal pain was also 0. The average VAS score for ease of taking and taste perception of the bowel cleanser was 10. Side effects included mild to moderate nausea (15.63%), mild vomiting (4.69%), mild to moderate abdominal pain (7.81%), mild to moderate abdominal distension (20.31%), mild palpitation (7.81%) and mild dizziness (4.69%).

CONCLUSION

Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate is effective and safe for bowel preparation before colonoscopy with high subjective patient acceptance, thus improving overall patient compliance.

Impact of simethicone on bowel cleansing during colonoscopy in Chinese patients

BACKGROUND

Four-liter polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions are effective for bowel cleansing, but their large volume might hinder patient compliance. Due to the unique features of Asians, 4 L PEG might be a suboptimal bowel preparation in predominantly ethnically Asian countries. In view of this, a balance should be achieved between the volume and effectiveness. The ideal bowel cleansing regimen for a colonoscopy has yet to be determined in a Chinese population.

AIM

To compare the cleansing efficacy of 3 L PEG plus simethicone with 4 L PEG.

METHODS

A total of 291 patients were randomly allocated to two groups: Group 1 (n = 145) received 4 L split-dose PEG (4-P); group 2 (n = 146) received 3 L split-dose PEG plus simethicone (3-PS). Bowel-cleansing efficacy was evaluated by endoscopists using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) and the bubbles score.

RESULTS

Although there were no significant differences in the total BBPS score or the adequate rate of bowel preparation between the two groups, the BBPS score of the right-side colon was significantly higher in the 3-SP group (2.37 ± 0.54 vs 2.21 ± 0.78; P = 0.04). Moreover, the use of simethicone significantly reduced bubbles in all colon segments (P < 0.001). The mean withdrawal time was significantly shorter in the 3-PS group (8.8 ± 3.4 vs 9.6 ± 2.3; P = 0.02). Furthermore, significantly more proximal adenomas were detected in the 3-PS group (53.6% vs 45.7%; P = 0.03). In addition, the proportions of patients with nausea and bloating were significantly lower in the 3-SP group (P < 0.01 for both). More patients in the 3-PS group expressed willingness to repeat the bowel preparation (87.7% vs 76.6%, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Three-liter PEG shows satisfactory bowel cleansing despite the decrease in dosage, and addition of simethicone with better bubble elimination and enhanced patient acceptance offers excellent potential impact on the detection of proximal adenomas in Chinese patients.

Antiemetics improve the tolerance of polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Bowel preparation is essential to the success of colonoscopy. However, many patients cannot finish the preparation due to nausea and vomiting when taking polyethylene glycol (PEG). Dopamine-2 receptor antagonists, such as domperidone and sulpiride, are classical antiemetic drugs. This study aimed to explore the effect of domperidone and sulpiride on reducing the discomforts associated with PEG.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for colonoscopy were enrolled and randomly allocated into 3 groups. Patients in the domperidone group (Dom group) or sulpiride group (Sul group) took 2 doses of domperidone or sulpiride before PEG. Patients in the control group (Con group) followed the regular routine of PEG. Discomforts during bowel preparation and the quality of bowel preparation were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 306 patients were enrolled. The participants in the Dom group and Sul group completed PEG better and had fewer abdominal discomforts than those in the Con group. The severity of nausea and abdominal fullness was lower in the Dom group and Sul group. The quality of bowel preparation was better in the Dom group and Sul group than Con group.

CONCLUSIONS

Domperidone and sulpiride could reduce the PEG-related discomfort and improve the quality of bowel preparation. This method may be a promising way to improve the satisfaction of bowel preparation for both patients and endoscopists.

Split-dose vs same-day bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopies: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Quality of bowel preparation in afternoon colonoscopies has been a struggle. Currently, a choice of same-day preparation (SaD) or split-dose preparation (SpD) exists; however, randomized controlled trials’ results have varied. 

AIM

To examine the outcomes of SaD and SpD for afternoon colonoscopies.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was conducted using multiple databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults that compared SaD to SpD with Ottawa bowel preparation score (OBPS) were included. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference was used to analyze outcomes.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were included (n = 1846). No difference was observed for satisfactory bowel preparation based on OBPS among participants receiving SaD vs SpD (OR 0.77; 95%CI: -0.57-1.03; P = 0.07; I² = 5%). Subgroup analysis showed no difference in terms of satisfactory bowel preparation based on OBPS between the two groups when receiving same preparation formula (polyethylene glycol) (OR 0.83; 95%CI: 0.51-1.35; P = 0.46; I² = 39%) as well as receiving same formula and volume (4 L polyethylene glycol) (OR 1.14; 95%CI: 0.65-2.01; P = 0.64; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopies, SaD is comparable with SpD in terms of satisfactory bowel preparation. Further studies are needed to validate these results and determine the optimal formula and dosages.

Efficacy of single- versus split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for morning colonoscopy: A randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Split-dose (SPD) regimen has been proved more effective than a single-dose (SID) regimen for various drug preparations; however, limited data have focused on morning colonoscopy. We implemented this study to compare the bowel cleanliness and tolerability of a same-day SID versus SPD 2 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG) for morning colonoscopy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing morning colonoscopy were randomized into two groups, SID or SPD. In the SID group, patients had to complete 2 L PEG between 4 and 6 am on the day of colonoscopy. In the SPD group, patients had to complete 1 L PEG between 8 and 9 pm on the day before followed by another 1 L PEG between 5 and 6 am on the day of colonoscopy. Colonoscopy was performed between 8 and 12 am under anesthesia. Investigators and endoscopists were blinded to the allocation. The primary end point was the effectiveness of bowel cleansing according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate, compliance, tolerability, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Overall, there were 147 and 148 patients in the SID and SPD group, respectively. The SPD group had a better quality of bowel preparation than the SID group with a total BBPS score of 7.25 ± 1.53 versus 6.71 ± 1.65 (P = 0.005). No difference in the polyp detection rate was noted, although more polyps were detected in the SPD group. More patients felt acceptable with the bowel preparation regimen in the SPD group compared to the SID group (76% vs. 65%, P = 0.03). The adverse events were more commonly observed in the SID group, presented as nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

For morning colonoscopy, split-dose 2 L PEG is superior to single-dose 2 L PEG by improved bowel preparation, better tolerability, and patient satisfaction.

A Randomized, Endoscopist-Blinded, Prospective Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Patient Tolerability between Bowel Preparation Protocols Using Sodium Picosulfate Magnesium Citrate and Polyethylene-Glycol (1 L and 2 L) for Colonoscopy

Patient compliance during bowel preparation is important for successful colonoscopy. Bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG), the most commonly used solution for cleansing, involves the unpleasant ingestion of a large amount of liquid. Sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (SP-MC) solution is an alternative option with better palatability than PEG. Therefore, in this study, we compared the efficacy and patient tolerability among the following three bowel preparation protocols: 2 L PEG-ascorbic acid (ASc), 1 L PEG-ASc plus bisacodyl, and SP-MC 340 mL plus bisacodyl. We conducted a randomized prospective endoscopist-blinded study between August 2018 and January 2019. A total of 311 patients were randomly classified into three groups according to the above-described bowel preparation protocols. To evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, we used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. The degree of symptoms and the patients' satisfaction with each bowel preparation method were investigated using a questionnaire completed before sedation for colonoscopy. The baseline characteristics were similar among the three groups. There was no significant difference in the bowel preparation quality among the three groups. However, the incidence of symptoms, such as abdominal fullness and pain, was significantly lower (P = 0.006 and 0.027, respectively) while the patients' satisfaction rate was significantly higher (P = 0.012) in the SP-MC plus bisacodyl group than in the two PEG groups. In this study, the efficacy of the SP-MC plus bisacodyl solution was similar to that of the PEG solutions. However, patient tolerability and satisfaction were better in the SP-MC plus bisacodyl group than in the other groups. In conclusion, the use of SP-MC plus bisacodyl bowel preparation solution might be a better method for providing good intestinal cleansing and improving patient compliance.

A Randomized Trial of Split Dose 3 L Polyethylene Glycol Lavage Solution, 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Lavage Combined With Castor Oil, and 1 L of Polyethylene Glycol Lavage Solution Combined With Castor Oil and Ascorbic Acid for Preparation for Colonoscopy

Background: Castor oil (CaO) has the potential of halving the required volume of bowel preparation solution; however, no clinical trial investigated the efficacy of CaO on bowel preparation for colonoscopy in addition to polyethylene glycol (PEG).

Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate efficacy and safety of lower dose PEG together with 30 mL CaO alone or plus ascorbic acid (Asc) in bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Methods: Two hundred and forty-six patients were allocated randomly to ingest 2 L PEG with 30 mL CaO, 1 L PEG with 30 mL CaO plus 5 g Asc, or 3 L PEG. We used Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate bowel preparation efficacy. We also determined other outcomes such as procedure time, polyp or adenoma detection rate, and adverse events (AEs).

Results: Of 282 patients recruited, 36 were excluded. Groups were matched for baseline characteristics except weight (P = 0.020) and body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.003). Patient's satisfaction was higher in 2 L PEG-CaO (P = 0.016) and 1 L PEG-CaO-Asc groups (P = 0·017). Patients' compliance was 67.5, 71.4, and 80.5% in 3 L PEG, 2 L PEG-CaO, and 1 L PEG-CaO-Asc groups (P = 0.014). Adequate bowel preparation rate was 75, 78.57, and 53.66% in 3 L PEG, 2 L PEG-CaO, and 1 L PEG-CaO-Asc groups (P = 0.021). There were no differences in terms of remaining outcomes.

Conclusions: Despite an increase in patients' satisfaction and compliance, 1 L PEG-CaO-Asc significantly decreased adequate bowel preparation rate. However, 2 L PEG-CaO improved the patients' satisfaction and compliance and increased adequate bowel preparation rate (Registration number, ChiCTR-IIR-17012418).

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Combining simethicone (SIM) with a colon preparation agent has been shown to improve mucosal visibility during screening colonoscopy, but its effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains unclear. SIM is commonly used through the endoscope to eliminate bubbles during endoscopy. However, this practice recently has been associated with endoscope-transmitted infections. Our aims were to determine the role of SIM added to a polyethylene glycol preparation on the ADR, procedure times, colon preparation, and intraprocedural use of SIM.

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, clinical trial of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. Patients with a high risk of colorectal cancer were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 different preparations: polyethylene glycol plus SIM or polyethylene glycol. Two endoscopists blinded to patient preparation regimens scored its quality by using the Boston Bowel Preparation scale (BBPS) and the bubble scale. Interobserver agreement was calculated. The polyp detection rate, ADR, intraprocedural use of SIM, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time were recorded. For study purposes, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time were combined to determine the effective procedure time.

RESULTS

No significant difference between the polyethylene glycol plus SIM and polyethylene glycol arms was seen regarding the ADR (33.3% vs 38.8%; P = .881) and effective procedure time (759.3 ± 253.1 seconds vs 800.2 ± 459.6 seconds; P = .373), respectively. Intraprocedural use of SIM as well as the bubble scale score were significantly lower in the polyethylene glycol plus SIM arm (1.6% vs 48.9%; P ≤ .05) and (0.1 vs 2.1; P ≤ .05), respectively. Conversely, no difference was found in the BBPS scores. The interobserver agreement for both scores was strong (bubble scale score kappa = .537; P < .05; BBPS score kappa = .184; P <.05).

CONCLUSION

Adding SIM to a polyethylene glycol preparation did not improve the ADR or effective procedure time. Nevertheless, it resulted in lower bubble scale scores, and more importantly, in less intraprocedural use of SIM. This simple and inexpensive intervention may have the potential to reduce the risk of endoscope-transmitted infections. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03119168.).

The Efficacy of Split-Dose Bowel Preparations for Polyp Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Split-dose bowel preparation leads to superior colon cleansing for colonoscopy. However, the magnitude of benefit in detecting colonic polyps is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to synthesize the data on whether using a split-dose bowel preparation regimen improves the detection of polyps when compared with other dosing methods or regimen products.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases (from the inception to June 2017) for randomized controlled trials that assessed the following: split-dose vs day-before, split-dose vs same-day (as colonoscopy), or different types of split-dose regimens for patients undergoing colonoscopy. We excluded studies limited to inpatients, children, or individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. We compared the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy with recorded detection of polyps, adenomas, advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), right colonic adenomas, right colonic polyps, or right colonic SSPs.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (8,842 participants). Of the seven trials comparing split-dose vs day-before bowel preparation regimens, there was an increased detection rate of adenomas (risk ratio (RR) 1.26, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 1.10-1.44; 4 trials; 1,258 participants), advanced adenomas (RR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.22-1.92; 3 trials; 1,155 participants), and SSPs (RR 2.48, 95% CI: 1.21-5.09; 2 trials; 1,045 participants). Pooled estimates from 8 trials (1,587 participants) evaluating split-dose vs same-day bowel preparations yielded no evidence of statistical difference. For various split-dose vs split-dose trials, 14 fulfilled the criteria (5,496 participants) and no superior split-regimen was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with day-before bowel preparation regimens, split-dose bowel preparations regimens increase the detection of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and have the greatest benefit in SSP detection.

Bowel Preparations Administered the Morning of Colonoscopy Provide Similar Efficacy to a Split Dose Regimen: A Meta Analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative efficacy of same-day bowel preparations for colonoscopy remains unclear.

AIMS

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of same-day versus split dose bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Registry, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science and CINAHL. Studies were gathered using keywords: "morning preparation", "morning bowel preparation", "same day bowel preparation", and "colonoscopy." Pooled estimates of bowel preparation quality were analyzed among studies with categorical and continuous outcomes according to relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD). A random effects model was chosen a priori for all analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 1216 studies were retrieved with 15 trials meeting inclusion criteria. The categorical outcome of high quality bowel preparation for any same-day bowel preparation versus any split preparation was no different with a RR 0.95 [0.90;1.00] (P=0.62). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) was not different between groups, RR 0.97 [0.79;1.20] (P=0.81). Willingness to repeat and tolerability did not differ (RR 1.14 [0.96,1.36] (P=0.14) and RR 1.00 [0.96;1.04] (P=0.98), respectively. Adverse events were similar except for bloating, which was less frequent among the same-day preparation group, RR 0.68 [0.40;0.94] (P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

No clinically significant differences were noted among recipients of same day or split dose regimens. Adenoma detection rate, willingness to repeat and tolerability were similar, but bloating and interference with sleep favored the same-day preparations. Given lack of clinical differences, patient preference should dictate timing of colonoscopy preparation.

Same-day Versus Split-dose Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Split-dose regimens (SpDs) were recommended as a first choice for bowel preparation, whereas same-day regimens (SaDs) were recommended as an alternative; however, randomized trials compared them with mixed results. The meta-analysis was aimed at clarifying efficacy level between the 2 regimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify randomized trials published from 1990 to 2016, comparing SaDs to SpDs in adults. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for preparation quality, cecal intubation rate (CIR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), and any other adverse effects.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included. The proportion of individuals receiving SaDs and SpDs with adequate preparation in the pooled analysis were 79.4% and 81.7%, respectively, with no significant difference [OR=0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-1.36] in 11 trials. Subgroup analysis revealed that the odds of adequate preparation for SaDs with bisacodyl were 2.45 times that for SpDs without bisacodyl (95% CI, 1.45-4.51, in favor of SaDs with bisacodyl). Subjects received SaDs experienced better sleep.

CONCLUSIONS

SaDs were comparable with SpDs in terms of bowel cleanliness, CIR, and ADR, and could also outperform SpDs in preparation quality with bisacodyl. SaDs also offered better sleep the previous night than SpDs did, which suggests that SaDs might serve as a superior alternative to SpDs. The heterogenous regimens and measurements likely account for the low rates of optimal bowl preparations in both arms. Further studies are needed to validate these results and determine the optimal purgatives and dosages.

Comparative efficacy of combination of 1 L polyethylene glycol, castor oil and ascorbic acid versus 2 L polyethylene glycol plus castor oil versus 3 L polyethylene glycol for colon cleansing before colonoscopy: Study protocol of a randomized, double-blind, single-center study

Colonoscopy has been regarded as an important method of early diagnosing and treating gastrointestinal lesions; however adequate bowel preparation is critical one of many factors needed for successful colonoscopy. Although several modified or novel regimes have been developed, desired quality of bowel preparation has not yet been generated. Scattered evidences revealed that castor oil may have potential of effectively cleansing colon. It is noted that, however, prospective trial of exploring the value of castor oil in preparing bowel before colonoscopy is lacking. The aims of this study are to test the hypotheses that low dose castor oil (30 mL) may enhance potential of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and combination of low castor oil and ascorbic acid may halve the volume of PEG.This is a randomized, double-blind (endoscopist and assessor), single center trial with three-arm design. We will randomly assign 282 adult patients (≥18 years but < 75 years), who are scheduled to undergo colonoscopy, to receive either 3 L PEG alone, 2 L PEG plus 30 mL castor oil or combination of 1 L PEG, 30 mL castor oil and 5 g ascorbic acid. The bowel preparation quality based on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) is the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes include the first defecation time, total number of defecation, time of cecal intubation, detection rate of polyp and adenoma, willing to repeat the same regime, tolerance to regime, and adverse events.The study protocol has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committees of Chongqing University Cancer Hospital & Chongqing Cancer Institute & Chongqing Cancer Hospital & Chongqing Cancer Center (2017[107]). The results from this trial will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and will be presented at national and international conferences.

The incidence of and risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in elderly patients: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND/AIM

: We conducted a prospective observational study to identify the incidence of and risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in elderly Chinese patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 240 outpatients over 60 years of age scheduled for elective colonoscopy at our university hospital between November 2016 and April 2017. We recorded patient demographics, bowel preparation data, and clinical characteristics. Factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation were identified by multivariate logistical regression analysis.

RESULTS

The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 34.6%. Factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation were a history of abdominal surgery (OR, 2.617; CI, 1.324-5.174; P = 0.006), chronic constipation (OR, 3.307; CI, 1.551-7.054; P = 0.002), non-compliance with dietary instructions (OR, 2.239; CI, 1.122-4.471; P = 0.022), non-compliance with polyethylene glycol (PEG) dosage (OR, 4.576; CI, 1.855-11.287; P = 0.001), walking <30 minutes during preparation (OR, 2.474; CI, 1.261-4.855; P = 0.008), interval between PEG ingestion and the onset of bowel activity (OR, 1.025; CI, 1.010-1.040; P = 0.001), and a last stool that was not clear and watery (OR, 4.191; CI, 1.529-11.485; P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of adequate bowel preparation in elderly patients is not optimal. Walking <30 minutes during the PEG ingestion period may be a surrogate for bowel preparation failure. Future studies should identify elderly patients at risk for poor bowel preparation and develop interventions to improve outcomes in this population.

Endoscopic Improvement of the Adenoma Detection Rate during Colonoscopy - Where Do We Stand in 2015?

BACKGROUND

The presence of colorectal adenomas is considered a major risk factor for colorectal cancer development. The implementation of screening colonoscopy programs in the Western world has led to a substantial reduction of colorectal cancer death. Many efforts have been made to reduce the adenoma miss rates by the application of new endoscopic devices and techniques for better adenoma visualization.

SUMMARY

This special review gives the readership an overview of current endoscopic innovations that can aid in the increase of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy. These innovations include the use of devices like EndoCuff® and EndoRings® as well as new technical equipment like third-eye endoscope® and full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE®).

KEY MESSAGE

Technical improvements and newly developed accessories are able to improve the ADR. However, additional costs and a willingness to invest into potentially expensive equipment might be necessary. Investigator-dependent skills remain the backbone in the ADR detection.

Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates

OPINION STATEMENT

The adenoma detection rate (ADR), i.e., the proportion of average risk patients with at least one adenoma detected during screening colonoscopy, is inversely associated with the development of interval colorectal cancer. Increasing the ADR is therefore an important proxy for increase in quality and efficacy of (screening) colonoscopy. Several potentially modifiable factors, such as, procedural and technological factors, and quality improvement programs, and their effect on the ADR will be reviewed. Procedural factors, such as, bowel preparation, withdrawal time, and position changes of the patient are associated with the ADR. While the relation of others, such as inspection during insertion, use of antispasmodic agents, and second inspection in the proximal colon, with the ADR is not completely clear. Many new colonoscopy technologies have been evaluated over recent years and are still under evaluation, but no unequivocal positive effect on the ADR has been observed in randomized trials that have mostly been performed by experienced endoscopists with high baseline ADRs. Several quality improvement programs have been evaluated and seem to have a positive effect on endoscopists' ADR. Increase in ADR is important for the protective benefit of colonoscopy. There are now extensive methods to measure, benchmark, and improve ADR but increased awareness of these is critical. We have provided an overview of potential factors that can be used to increase personal ADRs in every day practice.