Randomized trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol-ascorbic acid for bowel cleansing in elderly people

Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for early detection and monitoring of colorectal cancer. Procedural effectiveness is dependent on optimal bowel preparation. Traditional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions are difficult to tolerate, whereas newer low-volume alternatives, including PEG with ascorbic acid and oral sulfate solutions (OSS), offer improved efficacy and tolerability. The meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSS compared to PEG for bowel preparation in colonoscopy.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception until June 2024. Only randomized controlled trials comparing OSS with PEG were included. Data was analyzed using R version 4.4.0 using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Twenty-one studies with 6346 participants met the inclusion criteria. OSS significantly improved adenoma detection (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%) and polyp detection rates (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%), and had a higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.50; p-value <0.01; I2 = 81%). PEG was associated with more sleep disturbances (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.82; p-value = 0.03; I2 = 0%). However, other adverse effects were similar between both solutions.

Conclusion

OSS demonstrated superior adenoma and polyp detection rates. When compared to PEG, patients utilizing OSS achieved higher BBPS scores. Data gleaned support enhanced cleansing efficacy and safety of OSS as a bowel preparation regimen.

Effectiveness of a Mobile Health Application for Educating Outpatients about Bowel Preparation

Colonoscopy is an essential method for diagnosing and treating colorectal cancer, relying on effective bowel preparation to thoroughly examine the large intestinal mucosa. Traditional education involves printed instructions and verbal explanations but does not guarantee clear patient understanding. Poor bowel preparation can obscure mucosal visibility, delaying cancer diagnosis and treatment. A mobile medical model using Android devices for bowel preparation education was tested in a single-blind, randomized trial. This trial enrolled outpatients undergoing colonoscopy at the Endoscopy Center for Diagnostic and Treatment between 27 October 2021 and 31 December 2022. This study introduced the ColonClean app alongside traditional methods. After examination, endoscopists rated the preparation quality using the Aronchick scale. A data analysis was conducted using SPSS 25.0 to determine if there was a significant improvement in bowel preparation quality between the control group (traditional method) and the experimental group (traditional method plus the ColonClean app). Forty patients were recruited in each group. In the experimental group, all ratings were "fair", with 75% receiving an "excellent" or "good" rating, showing statistical significance (p = 0.016). The ColonClean app improves bowel preparation quality more effectively than traditional care instructions.

Efficacy and safety of oral sodium sulfate tablet compared with 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate: a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Low-volume bowel preparation solutions, including 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-A), have been developed to improve tolerability. The oral sodium sulfate tablet (OST) is a new agent with simethicone as a preloaded component. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of OST compared to 1-L PEG-A.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, controlled study was performed with randomization into the OST (group A) and 1-L PEG-A (group B) groups. Bowel preparation efficacy was assessed on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Bubble Scale. Safety and tolerability were evaluated using a questionnaire and laboratory examination.

RESULTS

Final analysis was performed on 171 patients (group A: 87, group B: 84). The proportion of bowel preparation success (BBPS ≥ 2 for each colonic segment) in group A was not inferior compared to group B (95.4% vs 96.4%, P = 0.736, 1-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit -7.0%). The adenoma detection rate was not different (59.6% vs 41.9%; P = 0.087). The bubble scale was better in group A (0.2 ± 0.9 vs 1.9 ± 1.7, P < 0.001). All adverse events were mild in both groups. Nausea was less frequent in group A (14.9% vs 38.1%, P = 0.001). Overall satisfaction was better in group A (8.1 ± 2.1 vs 6.4 ± 2.8, P < 0.001). No clinically significant laboratory abnormality developed in both groups. These findings were similarly shown in old patients ≥65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Both OST and 1-L PEG-A were efficacious, safe, and tolerable for bowel preparation of colonoscopy. The OST showed fewer bubbles and slightly better tolerability.

The Efficacy of 480 ml Oral Sodium Sulfate for Improving Insufficient Bowel Preparation of Colonoscopy with High-Concentrated Polyethylene Glycol

Objectives

Oral sulfate solution (OSS) is used for bowel preparation (BP) during colonoscopy. The way of taking this agent can be used a same-day regimen (only on the day of colonoscopy) and split regimen (the day before and on the day of colonoscopy) for receiving it. In this study, we analyzed the efficacy of a same-day regimen of 480 ml OSS for insufficient bowel preparation (BP) with high-concentrated polyethylene glycol (H-PEG).

Materials and Methods

This multicenter retrospective study was conducted from December 2021 to December 2022 at three related institutions on patients aged ≥ 20 years with a fair or poor Aronchick score of BP with 1 l H-PEG in previous colonoscopy. All patients received a low-residual diet and 10 ml of 0.75% picosulfate sodium a day before the colonoscopy and 480 ml of OSS and ≥1 l of water 3 hours before the colonoscopy. We analyzed the rate of improvement with OSS compared to H-PEG and other efficacies, and adverse events (AE).

Results

We evaluated 125 cases (77 males) with an average age of 72.1 ± 8.8 years. The completion rate of 480 ml of OSS was 97.6% (122/125). The improvement rate of BP showing good or excellent score with OSS was 70.4% (88/125). Compared OSS with previous H-PEG, the insertion time (min) was 7.0 ± 4.8 vs. 8.1 ± 6.0 (p = 0.01), and the adenoma detection rates were 67.2% vs. 63.2% (p = 0.05). The cleansing time (min) was 131 ± 46 vs. 165 ± 53 (p < 0.01). The rate of AE with OSS was 10.4% (13/125). There were no significant differences about AE in age and gender. The tolerance of OSS compared with H-PEG (good/similar/bad) was 72.0%/24.8%/3.2% (amounts), 26.4%/39.2%/34.4% (taste), and 76.8%/10.4%/12.8% (overall preference), respectively.

Conclusions

The same-day regimen of 480 ml OSS effectively improved the insufficient BP of 1 l H-PEG.

Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Although oral sulfate solution (OSS) has been revealed to be not only safe and efficacious but also noninferior to polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG + ASC), it is unclear whether OSS can ultimately increase the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). We performed this meta-analysis to estimate the effect of OSS on PDR and ADR during colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the comparative effect of OSS versus PEG + ASC on the PDR and ADR during colonoscopy. Cecal intubation time (CIT), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and bowel preparation score were also evaluated. Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3.0 was used to perform statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 2059 patients fulfilled the selection criteria. Meta-analysis suggested that OSS significantly increased the PDR (47.34% vs. 40.14%, risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.24, P = 0.01) and ADR (44.60% vs. 38.14%, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.33, P = 0.01) during colonoscopy. Subgroup analysis showed that the beneficial effects of OSS on PDR and ADR were consistent among patients with mean age >55 years and with body mass index <25 kg/m² receiving outpatient colonoscopy, morning colonoscopy, and the 2-L bowel preparation protocol. Meanwhile, patients receiving OSS had a beneficial bowel preparation score.

CONCLUSION

Compared with polyethylene glycol-based regimens, the OSS bowel preparation regimen significantly increased the PDR and ADR in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

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.