Reduced cathartic bowel preparation for CT colonography: prospective comparison of 2-L polyethylene glycol and magnesium citrate

Gastrointestinal pharmacoradiology, an updated review of medications and gastrointestinal contrasts in abdominal imaging

The purpose of this article is to review commonly used medications in abdominal radiology including their indications, mechanisms of action, dosages, contraindications, precautions, and adverse reactions. We will clarify common inquiries and address frequently asked questions by patients and clinicians related to their use. In addition, we will explore the indications, advantages and disadvantages, dosages, and contraindications of enteric contrast agents used for CT and fluoroscopic examinations.

Comparison of MiraLAX and magnesium citrate for bowel preparation at CT colonography

PURPOSE

To compare MiraLAX, a hypo-osmotic lavage, and magnesium citrate (MgC), a hyper-osmotic agent for bowel preparation at CTC.

METHODS

398 total screening CTC studies were included in this retrospective, single institution study. 297 underwent preparation with a double-dose MgC regimen (mean age, 61 ± 5.5 years; 142 male/155 female) and 101 with 8.3 oz (equivalent to 238 g PEG) of MiraLAX (mean age, 60 ± 9.6 years; 45 male/56 female). Oral contrast for tagging purposes was utilized in both regimens. Studies were retrospectively analyzed for residual fluid volume and attenuation by automated analysis, as well for subjective oral contrast coating of the normal colonic wall and polyps. 50 patients underwent successive CTC studies utilizing each agent (mean, 6.1 ± 1.7 years apart), allowing for intra-patient comparison. Chi-squared, Fisher's exact, McNemar, and t-tests were used for data comparison.

RESULTS

Residual fluid volume (as percentage of total colonic volume) and fluid density was 7.2 ± 4.2% and 713 ± 183 HU for the MgC cohort and 8.7 ± 3.8% and 1044 HU ± 274 for the MiraLAX cohort, respectively (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Similar results were observed for the intra-patient cohort. Colonic wall coating negatively influencing interpretation was noted in 1.7% of MgC vs. 6.9% of MiraLAX examinations (p = 0.008). Polyps were detected in 12% of all MgC vs. 16% of all MiraLAX CTCs (p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

CTC bowel preparation with the hypo-osmotic MiraLAX agent appears to provide acceptable diagnostic quality that is comparable to the hyper-osmotic MgC agent, especially when factoring in patient safety and tolerance.

Effect of dose splitting of a low-volume bowel preparation macrogol-based solution on CT colonography tagging quality

Purpose

To compare examination quality and acceptability of three different low-volume bowel preparation regimens differing in scheduling of the oral administration of a Macrogol-based solution, in patients undergoing computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The secondary aim was to compare CTC quality according to anatomical and patient variables (dolichocolon, colonic diverticulosis, functional and secondary constipation).

Methods

One-hundred-eighty patients were randomized into one of three regimens where PEG was administered, respectively: in a single dose the day prior to (A), or in a fractionated dose 2 (B) and 3 days (C) before the examination. Two experienced radiologists evaluated fecal tagging (FT) density and homogeneity both qualitatively and quantitatively by assessing mean segment density (MSD) and relative standard deviation (RSD). Tolerance to the regimens and patient variables were also recorded.

Results

Compared to B and C, regimen A showed a lower percentage of segments with inadequate FT and a significantly higher median FT density and/or homogeneity scores as well as significantly higher MSD values in some colonic segments. No statistically significant differences were found in tolerance of the preparations. A higher number of inadequate segments were observed in patients with dolichocolon (p < 0.01) and secondary constipation (p < 0.01). Interobserver agreement was high for the assessment of both FT density (k = 0.887) and homogeneity (k = 0.852).

Conclusion

The best examination quality was obtained when PEG was administered the day before CTC in a single session. The presence of dolichocolon and secondary constipation represent a risk factor for the presence of inadequately tagged colonic segments.

Computed tomography colonography for the practicing radiologist: A review of current recommendations on methodology and clinical indications

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents one of the most relevant causes of morbidity and mortality in Western societies. CRC screening is actually based on faecal occult blood testing, and optical colonoscopy still remains the gold standard screening test for cancer detection. However, computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) constitutes a reliable, minimally-invasive method to rapidly and effectively evaluate the entire colon for clinically relevant lesions. Furthermore, even if the benefits of its employment in CRC mass screening have not fully established yet, CT colonography may represent a reasonable alternative screening test in patients who cannot undergo or refuse colonoscopy. Therefore, the purpose of our review is to illustrate the most updated recommendations on methodology and the current clinical indications of CT colonography, according to the data of the existing relevant literature.

Simethicone to prevent colonic bubbles during CT colonography performed with polyethylene glycol lavage and iohexol tagging: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the occurrence of numerous colonic bubbles during CT colonography (CTC) performed with polyethylene glycol cleansing and oral iohexol fecal/fluid tagging could be prevented by use of simethicone.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Adults with suspected colonic neoplasia who had been randomly assigned to control and simethicone intervention groups underwent CTC after cleansing with 4 L of polyethylene glycol, tagging with 50 mL of 350 mg I/mL oral iohexol, and without (control) or with (intervention) oral administration of 200 mg of simethicone. Colonic segments in the control and intervention groups were evaluated for amount of colonic bubbles during CTC. A 6-point grading system was used in which 0 indicated no bubbles and 5 indicated that more than three fourths of the air-distended mucosa was covered with bubbles. The primary endpoint was a per-patient colonic bubble grade, derived as an average of the segmental grades.

RESULTS

Eighty adults with suspected colonic neoplasia were randomly assigned to the control (40 patients) and simethicone intervention (40 patients) groups. A total of 659 colonic segments in the control group and 689 segments in the intervention group were evaluated for amount of colonic bubbles during CTC. The per-patient colonic bubble score was significantly lower in the simethicone intervention group than in the control group. The mean score was 0.0±0.1 (SD) versus 1.2±0.8 (p<0.001; 95% CI for the mean difference, -1.4 to -1.0). In the intervention group, 673 (97.7%) segments were grade 0, and 16 (2.3%) were grade 1. In contrast, in the control group, 226 (34.3%) segments were grade 0; 173 (26.3%), grade 1; 175 (26.6%), grade 2; 45 (6.8%), grade 3; 23 (3.5%), grade 4; and 17 (2.6%), grade 5.

CONCLUSION

The colonic bubbles associated with fecal/fluid tagging with iohexol can be successfully prevented by adding simethicone to the colonic preparation.

Comparison of a 4-Day versus 2-Day Low Fiber Diet Regimen in Barium Tagging CT Colonography in Incomplete Colonoscopy Patients

Our aim was to compare the amount of residual feces, residual fluid, the tagging quality, and patient compliance using 4-day versus 2-day low fiber diet regimen in barium tagging CT colonography in incomplete colonoscopy patients. Methods. A total of 101 patients who underwent CT colonography were assigned to 2-day diet group (n = 56) and 4-day diet group (n = 45). Fecal tagging was achieved with barium sulphate while bisacodyl and sennoside B were used for bowel preparation. Residual solid stool was divided into two groups measuring <6 mm and ≥6 mm. We graded the residual fluid, tagging quality for solid stool, and fluid per bowel segment. We performed a questionnaire to assess patient compliance. Results. 604 bowel segments were evaluated. There was no significant difference between 2-day and 4-day diet groups with respect to residual solid stool, residual fluid, tagging quality for stool, and fluid observed in fecal tag CT colonography (P > 0.05). The prevalence of moderate discomfort was significantly higher in 4-day group (P < 0.001). Conclusion. Our study shows that 2-day limited bowel preparation regimen for fecal tag CT colonography is a safe and reasonable technique to evaluate the entire colon, particularly in incomplete conventional colonoscopy patients.

History, evolution, and current status of radiologic imaging tests for colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer screening is thought to be an effective tool with which to reduce the mortality from colorectal cancer through early detection and removal of colonic adenomas and early colon cancers. In this article, we review the history, evolution, and current status of imaging tests of the colon-including single-contrast barium enema, double-contrast barium enema, computed tomographic (CT) colonography, and magnetic resonance (MR) colonography-for colorectal cancer screening. Despite its documented value in the detection of colonic polyps, the double-contrast barium enema has largely disappeared as a screening test because it is widely perceived as a labor-intensive, time-consuming, and technically demanding procedure. In the past decade, the barium enema has been supplanted by CT colonography as the major imaging test in colorectal cancer screening in the United States, with MR colonography emerging as another viable option in Europe. Although MR colonography does not require ionizing radiation, the radiation dose for CT colonography has decreased substantially, and regular screening with this technique has a high benefit-to-risk ratio. In recent years, CT colonography has been validated as an effective tool for use in colorectal cancer screening that is increasingly being disseminated.

Iohexol versus diatrizoate for fecal/fluid tagging during CT colonography performed with cathartic preparation: comparison of examination quality

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare iohexol vs. diatrizoate as fecal/fluid tagging agents for computed tomography colonography (CTC) regarding examination quality.

METHODS

Forty prospective patients (M:F = 23:17; 63 ± 11.6 years) received CTC using 50 mL (350 mgI/mL) oral iohexol for tagging. Forty other indication-matched, age-matched, and sex-matched patients who underwent CTC using 100 mL diatrizoate for tagging and otherwise the same technique, were retrospectively identified. Two groups were compared regarding overall examination quality, per-patient and per-segment scores of colonic bubbles (0 [no bubbles] to 5 [the largest amount]), and the volume, attenuation, and homogeneity (untagged, layered, and homogeneous) of the residual colonic fluid.

RESULTS

The iohexol group demonstrated a greater amount of colonic bubbles than the diatrizoate group: mean per-patient scores ± SD of 1.2 ± 0.8 vs. 0.7 ± 0.6, respectively (p = 0.003); and rates of segments showing ≥ grade 3 bubbles of 12.9 % (85/659) vs. 1.6 % (11/695), respectively (p = 0.001). Residual colonic fluid amount standardized to the colonic volume did not significantly differ: 7.2 % ± 4.2 vs. 7.8 % ± 3.7, respectively (p = 0.544). Tagged fluid attenuation was mostly comparable between groups and the fluid was homogeneously tagged in 98.7 % (224/227) vs. 99.5 % (218/219) segments, respectively (p = 0.344). Iohexol caused more colonic bubbles when used during cathartic CTC. Otherwise, examination quality was similarly adequate with both iohexol and diatrizoate.

KEY POINTS

• When used for tagging, iohexol caused significantly more colonic bubbles than diatrizoate. • The residual colonic fluid amount did not significantly differ between iohexol and diatrizoate. • The quality of fluid tagging was similarly adequate in both iohexol and diatrizoate.

Intra-individual comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for bowel preparation at CT colonography: automated volumetric analysis of residual fluid for quality assessment

AIM

To perform an objective, intra-individual comparison of residual colonic fluid volume and attenuation associated with the current front-line laxative magnesium citrate (MgC) versus the former front-line laxative sodium phosphate (NaP) at CT colonography (CTC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study had institutional review board approval; informed consent was waived. The study cohort included 250 asymptomatic adults (mean age at index 56.1 years; 124 male/126 female) who underwent CTC screening twice over a 5 year interval. Colon catharsis at initial and follow-up screening employed single-dose NaP and double-dose MgC, respectively, allowing for intra-patient comparison. Automated volumetric analysis of residual colonic fluid volume and attenuation was performed on all 500 CTC studies. Colonic fluid volume <200 ml and mean attenuation between 300-900 HU were considered optimal. Paired t-test and McNemar's test were used to compare differences.

RESULTS

Residual fluid volumes <200 ml were recorded in 192 examinations (76.8%) following MgC and in 204 examinations (81.6%) following NaP (p = 0.23). The mean total residual fluid volume was 155 ± 114 ml for MgC and 143 ± 100 ml for NaP (p = 0.01). The attenuation range of 300-900 HU was significantly more frequent for MgC (n = 220, 88%) than for NaP (n = 127, 50.8%; p < 0.001). Mean fluid attenuation was significantly lower for MgC (700 ± 165 HU) than for NaP (878 ± 155 HU; p < 0.001). Concomitant presence of both optimal fluid volume and attenuation was significantly more frequent for MgC 65.2% than for NaP (38%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Objective intra-individual comparison using automated volumetric analysis suggests that the replacement of NaP by MgC as the front-line laxative for CTC has not compromised overall examination quality.

Bowel cleansing before CT colonography: comparison between two minimal-preparation regimens

AIM

To compare two regimens of reduced bowel preparation and faecal tagging for CT colonography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single centre, prospective, randomized, noninferiority study, in which 52 consecutive adults underwent routine CT colonography. Patients, following a three-day low-fibre diet, received one of the two reduced preparations: 1-L polyethylene glycol and four tablets of bisacodyl in association with 90 mL of Iopamidol for faecal tagging administered on the same day as CTC examination (group 1); or a standard "iodine-only" preparation, consisting in 180 ml of Iopamidol the day before the examination (group 2). Primary outcome was the overall quality of bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients per group were included. Per segment analysis showed preparation of diagnostic quality in 97.4% of segments in group 1 and in 95.5% in group 2 (p = ns). Per-patient analysis showed optimal quality of preparation in 76.9% of patients in group 1 and in 84.6% in group 2 (p = ns). Patient tolerability to both preparations was not different.

CONCLUSION

A limited bowel preparation consisting of 1-L PEG and four tablets of bisacodyl in association with 90 mL of Iodine for faecal tagging administered on the same day as CTC examination is feasible and offers bowel cleansing comparable to "iodine-only" preparation.

KEY POINTS

• Low-dose PEG bisacodyl and Iopamidol preparation is feasible, providing adequate bowel cleansing. • Faecal tagging is not different from the two limited preparations. • Patient tolerability to the two colon cleansing regimens is similar.

Virtual colonoscopy: Utility, impact and overview

Computed tomography (CT) colonoscopy is a well-established technique for evaluation of colorectal cancer. Significant advances have been made in the technique of CT colonoscopy since its inception. Excellent results can be achieved in detecting both colorectal cancer and significant sized polyps as long as a meticulous technique is adopted while performing CT colonoscopy. Furthermore, it is important to realize that there is a learning curve involved in interpreting these studies and adequate experience is essential to achieve high sensitivity and specificity with this technique. Indications, contraindications, technique and interpretation, including potential pitfalls in CT colonoscopy imaging, are reviewed in this article. Recent advances and the current role of CT colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening are also discussed.

Advances in CT Colonography for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis

CT colonography (CTC) is a validated colorectal cancer test that provides an additional minimally-invasive screening option which is likely to be preferred by some patients. Important examination prerequisites include adequate colonic cleansing and distention. Tagging of residual material aids in the differentiation of true polyps from stool. Low radiation dose technique should be employed routinely for screening studies. Readers must be skilled in the use of both 2D and 3D interpretation methods.

Pilot study on efficacy of reduced cathartic bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of reduced cathartic bowel preparation with 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-4000 electrolyte solution and 10 mg bisacodyl enteric-coated tablets for computed tomographic colonography (CTC).

METHODS: Sixty subjects who gave informed consent were randomly assigned to study group A, study group B or the control group. On the day prior to CTC, subjects in study group A were given 20 mL 40% wt/vol barium sulfate suspension before 3 mealtimes, 60 mL 60% diatrizoate meglumine diluted in 250 mL water after supper, and 10 mg bisacodyl enteric-coated tablets 1 h before oral administration of 2 L PEG-4000 electrolyte solution. Subjects in study group B were treated identically to those in study group A, with the exception of bisacodyl which was given 1 h after oral PEG-4000. Subjects in the control group were managed using the same strategy as the subjects in study group A, but without administration of bisacodyl. Residual stool and fluid scores, the attenuation value of residual fluid, and discomfort during bowel preparation in the three groups were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS: The mean scores for residual stool and fluid in study group A were lower than those in study group B, but the differences were not statistically significant. Subjects in study group A showed greater stool and fluid cleansing ability than the subjects in study group B. The mean scores for residual stool and fluid in study groups A and B were lower than those in the control group, and were significantly different. There was no significant difference in the mean attenuation value of residual fluid between study group A, study group B and the control group. The total discomfort index during bowel preparation was 46, 45 and 45 in the three groups, respectively, with no significant difference.

CONCLUSION: Administration of 10 mg bisacodyl enteric-coated tablets prior to or after oral administration of 2 L PEG-4000 electrolyte solution enhances stool and fluid cleansing ability, and has no impact on the attenuation value of residual fluid or the discomfort index. The former is an excellent alternative for CTC colorectum cleansing