A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid versus standard-volume polyethylene glycol solution as bowel preparations for colonoscopy

Vomiting-induced pharyngeal perforation during bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A case report

BACKGROUND

Effective bowel cleansing is essential for a successful colonoscopy. Laxatives, such as polyethylene glycol, are commonly used for bowel preparation. Vomiting is a frequent complication during bowel preparation, and forceful vomiting can potentially lead to esophageal perforation, as reported in several previous cases. However, pharyngeal perforation during bowel preparation has not been previously documented. Here, we present a case of pharyngeal perforation induced by forceful vomiting during bowel preparation.

CASE SUMMARY

A 38-year-old man with a history of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis was admitted for evaluation of recurrent abdominal pain. The patient complained of sudden pain in the neck, throat, and anterior chest following forceful vomiting during bowel preparation. Physical examination revealed crepitus under the skin of the neck and anterior chest on palpation, and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed pharyngeal perforation. The perforation site was located above the upper esophageal sphincter, which distinguished it from Boerhaave's syndrome. Conservative medical management was chosen after consultation with a thoracic surgeon and an otolaryngologist, considering the patient's mild symptoms, stable vital signs, and the small size of the lesion; the perforation resolved without endoscopic or surgical intervention. The patient was discharged from hospital two weeks after the perforation.

CONCLUSION

Despite its rarity, pharyngeal perforation should be considered a potential complication of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Superior bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy with 1L-PEG compared to 2L-PEG and picosulphate: Data from a large real-world retrospective outpatient cohort

BACKGROUND

Several randomized clinical trials comparing different bowel preparations (BP) have shown similar efficacy; however, there is a lack of real-world studies on this topic.

AIMS

This study aims to identify the most effective BP regimen in a real-world setting and any predictors of inadequate BP.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was conducted over 14 months at an academic hospital including outpatient colonoscopies in which adult patients did not teach on how to perform BP before colonoscopy. Colonoscopies with 1L-PEG, 2L-PEG and picosulphate mixtures were considered. A multivariable analysis for factors associated to poor BP was fitted.

RESULTS

Overall, 1779 patients (51 %F, 60±14) years were included. The 1L-PEG regimen provided a higher rate of BP adequacy at multivariate analysis (adjusted OR 2.30, 95 %CI 1.67-3.16,p < 0.001) and was associated with higher median Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (p < 0.001), higher rate of right-colon cleansing (p < 0.001) and exam completion (p = 0.04). Furthermore, we identified male sex, history of constipation, active smoking, previous pelvic surgery, concomitant psychiatric/neurological or chronic kidney diseases as predictors of inadequate BP.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest real-world study comparing 1L-PEG to other BP regimens. Our results suggest 1L-PEG provides better BP in a non-controlled setting, improving clinical practice quality and minimizing the need for repeated colonoscopies and saving healthcare resources.

Design and validation of an artificial intelligence system to detect the quality of colon cleansing before colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients' perception of their bowel cleansing quality may guide rescue cleansing strategies before colonoscopy. The main aim of this study was to train and validate a convolutional neural network (CNN) for classifying rectal effluent during bowel preparation intake as "adequate" or "inadequate" cleansing before colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy were asked to provide images of their rectal effluent during the bowel preparation process. The images were categorized as adequate or inadequate cleansing based on a predefined 4-picture quality scale. A total of 1203 images were collected from 660 patients. The initial dataset (799 images), was split into a training set (80%) and a validation set (20%). The second dataset (404 images) was used to develop a second test of the CNN accuracy. Afterward, CNN prediction was prospectively compared with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) in 200 additional patients who provided a picture of their last rectal effluent.

RESULTS

On the initial dataset, a global accuracy of 97.49%, a sensitivity of 98.17% and a specificity of 96.66% were obtained using the CNN model. On the second dataset, an accuracy of 95%, a sensitivity of 99.60% and a specificity of 87.41% were obtained. The results from the CNN model were significantly associated with those from the BBPS (P<0.001), and 77.78% of the patients with poor bowel preparation were correctly classified.

CONCLUSION

The designed CNN is capable of classifying "adequate cleansing" and "inadequate cleansing" images with high accuracy.

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of elobixibat plus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate and split-dose 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation before outpatient colonoscopy: a study protocol for the multicentre, randomised, controlled E-PLUS trial

BACKGROUND

Sodium picosulfate (SP)/magnesium citrate (MC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid are recommended by Western guidelines as laxative solutions for bowel preparation. Clinically, SP/MC has a slower post-dose defaecation response than PEG and is perceived as less cleansing; therefore, it is not currently used for major bowel cancer screening preparation. The standard formulation for bowel preparation is PEG; however, a large dose is required, and it has a distinctive flavour that is considered unpleasant. SP/MC requires a small dose and ensures fluid intake because it is administered in another beverage. Therefore, clinical trials have shown that SP/MC is superior to PEG in terms of acceptability. We aim to compare the novel bowel cleansing method (test group) comprising SP/MC with elobixibat hydrate and the standard bowel cleansing method comprising PEG plus ascorbic acid (standard group) for patients preparing for outpatient colonoscopy.

METHODS

This phase III, multicentre, single-blind, noninferiority, randomised, controlled, trial has not yet been completed. Patients aged 40-69 years will be included as participants. Patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery, constipation, inflammatory bowel disease, or severe organ dysfunction will be excluded. The target number of research participants is 540 (standard group, 270 cases; test group, 270 cases). The primary endpoint is the degree of bowel cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score ≥ 6). The secondary endpoints are patient acceptability, adverse events, polyp/adenoma detection rate, number of polyps/adenomas detected, degree of bowel cleansing according to the BBPS (BBPS score ≥ 8), degree of bowel cleansing according to the Aronchik scale, and bowel cleansing time.

DISCUSSION

This trial aims to develop a "patient-first" colon cleansing regimen without the risk of inadequate bowel preparation by using both elobixibat hydrate and SP/MC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT; no. s041210067; 9 September 2021; https://jrct.niph.go.jp/ ), protocol version 1.5 (May 1, 2023).

Adherence and Effectiveness of MoviPrepⓇ in Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Multicenter Study from the Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group

Objectives

Bowel preparation is burdensome because of long cleansing times and large dose volumes of conventional polyethylene glycol (PEG) lavage solution NiflecⓇ (Nif). MoviPrep (Mov)Ⓡ is a hyperosmolar preparation of PEG, electrolytes, and ascorbic acid; despite the smaller dose volume of 2 L, it can be challenging for many patients. We examined a more effective and acceptable bowel preparation method without compromising cleanliness and effectiveness, combining low-residue diet and laxative (Modified Brown Method) in Mov administered 1 day pre-colonoscopy.

Methods

This multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparative study, conducted at Hiroshima University Hospital and 7 affiliated hospitals in May 2015-March 2016, evaluated adherence to and effectiveness of Mov in bowel preparation. Participants (n=380) were allocated to receive 1 of 3 pre-colonoscopy regimens: Nif+Modified Brown Method (Group A), Mov+Modified Brown Method (Group B), or Mov+Laxative (Group C).

Results

Total intake volume showed no significant difference among the groups. Bowel preparation time was significantly shorter in Group B (112.4±44.8 min, n=118) than in Groups A (131.3±59 min, n=105) and C (122.6±48.1 min, n=115). Sleep disturbance (37%) was significantly higher in Group B than Group A; distension (11%) was significantly lower in Group C than in Groups A and B (p<0.05, respectively). No severe adverse events occurred in any group.

Conclusions

Mov+Modified Brown method provided significantly shorter bowel preparation time, with no significant difference in total intake volume among the regimens. Mov+Laxative yielded significantly less distension than the other groups, with bowel preparation equivalent to that of the Nif+Modified Brown method.

Bowel preparation protocol for hospitalized patients ages 50 years or older: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The incidence and mortality rate of colorectal cancer progressively increase with age and become particularly prominent after the age of 50 years. Therefore, the population that is ≥ 50 years in age requires long-term and regular colonoscopies. Uncomfortable bowel preparation is the main reason preventing patients from undergoing regular colonoscopies. The standard bowel preparation regimen of 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) is effective but poorly tolerated.

AIM

To investigate an effective and comfortable bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients ≥ 50 years in age.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to group 1 (2-L PEG + 30-mL lactulose + a low-residue diet) or group 2 (4-L PEG). Adequate bowel preparation was defined as a Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score of ≥ 6, with a score of ≥ 2 for each segment. Non-inferiority was prespecified with a margin of 10%. Additionally, the degree of comfort was assessed based on the comfort questionnaire.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with a BBPS score of ≥ 6 in group 1 was not significantly different from that in group 2, as demonstrated by intention-to-treat (91.2% vs 91.0%, P = 0.953) and per-protocol (91.8% vs 91.0%, P = 0.802) analyses. Furthermore, in patients ≥ 75 years in age, the proportion of BBPS scores of ≥ 6 in group 1 was not significantly different from that in group 2 (90.9% vs 97.0%, P = 0.716). Group 1 had higher comfort scores (8.85 ± 1.162 vs 7.59 ± 1.735, P < 0.001), longer sleep duration (6.86 ± 1.204 h vs 5.80 ± 1.730 h, P < 0.001), and fewer awakenings (1.42 ± 1.183 vs 2.04 ± 1.835, P = 0.026) than group 2.

CONCLUSION

For hospitalized patients ≥ 50 years in age, the bowel preparation regimen comprising 2-L PEG + 30-mL lactulose + a low-residue diet produced a cleanse that was as effective as the 4-L PEG regimen and even provided better comfort.

Comparing Low Volume Versus Conventional Volume of Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation during Colonoscopy: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Background

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution is widely used as a colonoscopic bowel cleaning agent, although some patients are intolerant due to the need for ingesting large solution volumes and unpleasant taste. A low-volume solution may enhance patient tolerability and compliance in bowel preparation. Accordingly, this study compared the effectiveness of two difference PEG volumes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in terms of bowel cleanliness, completeness of colonoscopy, patient tolerability and colonoscopy duration.

Methods

Using a prospective randomised controlled single-blinded study design, 164 patients scheduled for colonoscopy were allocated to two groups (n = 82 patients in each) to receive either the conventional PEG volume (3 L, control group) or the low volume (2 L, intervention group). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), a validated scale for assessing bowel cleanliness during colonoscopy, was used to score bowel cleanliness in three colon segments. Secondarily, colonoscopy completeness, tolerability to drinking PEG and the duration of colonoscopy were compared between the groups.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the two intervention groups in terms of bowel cleanliness (P = 0.119), colonoscopy completion (P = 0.535), tolerability (P = 0.190) or the amount of sedation/analgesia required (midazolam, P = 0.162; pethidine, P = 0.708). Only the duration of colonoscopy differed between the two groups (longer duration in the control group, P = 0.039).

Conclusion

Low-volume (2 L) PEG is as effective as the standard 3 L solution in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy; however, the superiority of either solution could not be established.

Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation using conventional versus hyperosmolar polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer (TLUMP test): a phase III, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

A hyperosmolar ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol-electrolyte (ASC-PEG) lavage solution ensures excellent bowel preparation before colonoscopy; however, no study has demonstrated the efficacy of this lavage solution before surgery. This study aimed to establish the non-inferiority of ASC-PEG to the standard polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial. Overall, 188 patients scheduled for laparoscopic colorectal resection for single colorectal adenocarcinomas were randomly assigned to undergo preparation with different PEG solutions between August 2017 and April 2020 at four hospitals in Japan. Participants received ASC-PEG (Group A) or PEG-ELS (Group B) preoperatively. The primary endpoint was the ratio of successful bowel preparations using the modified Aronchick scale, defined as "excellent" or "good."

RESULTS

After exclusion, 86 and 87 patients in Groups A and B, respectively, completed the study, and their data were analyzed. ASC-PEG was not inferior to PEG-ELS in terms of effective bowel preparation prior to laparoscopic colorectal resection (0.93 vs. 0.92; 95% confidence interval, - 0.078 to 0.099, p = 0.007). The total volume of cleansing solution intake was lower in Group A than in Group B (1757.0 vs. 1970.1 mL). Two and three severe postoperative adverse events occurred in Groups A and B, respectively. Patient tolerance of the two solutions was almost equal.

CONCLUSIONS

ASC-PEG is effective for preoperative bowel preparation in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer and is non-inferior to PEG-ELS.

Efficacy and tolerability of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid with senna versus 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for colonoscopic bowel preparation: Prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded trial

OBJECTIVES

Low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) reduces the dosage of colonoscopic bowel preparation (BP) solution, but is still poorly tolerated. Adding laxatives to the BP solution reduces the volume of fluid required, without affecting quality. This study aimed to compare 1 L PEG-Asc plus 24 mg senna (1L-PEG/AS) and conventional 2 L PEG-Asc (2L-PEG/A) regimens on BP quality and patient tolerability.

METHODS

A single-center, randomized, investigator-blinded, noninferiority trial was performed between June and August 2022. Outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to the 1L-PEG/AS or 2L-PEG/A group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to evaluate BP quality. Adverse events and tolerability were surveyed using questionnaires.

RESULTS

Overall, 344 patients received 1L-PEG/AS or 2L-PEG/A regimens. The baseline characteristics and adverse events of the two groups were comparable. The 1L-PEG/AS group showed noninferior adequate BP rates compared with the 2L-PEG/A group (88% vs. 89%, P = 1.00); overall BBPS was 7.1 ± 1.5 and 7.2 ± 1.5, respectively (P = 0.39). Higher willingness to repeat the BP was observed in the 1L-PEG/AS group (85% vs. 62%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The 1L-PEG/AS regimen was comparable to the 2L-PEG/A regimen in terms of BP adequacy, requiring lower BP solution volumes, with better patient tolerance. Thus, it may be a suitable alternative to the conventional BP solution for colonoscopy. The Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT1051220043).

Bowel cleansing effectiveness and safety of 1L PEG + Asc in the real-world setting: Observational, retrospective, multicenter study of over 13000 patients

Background and study aims Effective bowel cleansing is critical for detecting lesions during colonoscopy, highlighting the importance of bowel preparations. 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbate (Asc) is the only recommended 1L PEG product in Europe and the United States. Its efficacy was demonstrated in large-scale controlled trials and confirmed in smaller-scale real-world studies. However, no large-scale real-world data exist. Patients and methods This observational, retrospective, multicenter study, used outpatient follow-up data from medical records from 10 centers in Spain and two in Portugal. Outpatients aged ≥18 years using 1L PEG + Asc as bowel preparation were included. The main outcome measures were overall adequate colon cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score ≥6 with BBPS score ≥2 in each segment) and high-quality cleansing of the right colon (BBPS score=3). Results Data from 13169 eligible patients were included. Overall cleansing success was achieved in 89.3% (95%CI 88.7%-89.8%) and high-quality cleansing in the right colon in 49.3% (95%CI 48.4%-50.2%) of patients. For the overnight split-dose and same-day regimens, overall adequate quality cleansing success rate was 94.7% and 86.7% ( P <0.0001) and high-quality cleansing of the right colon rate was 65.4% and 41.4% ( P <0.0001), respectively. Colonoscopy was completed in 97.3% of patients, with non-completion due to poor preparation in only 0.8%; 2.3% of patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE). Conclusions This large-scale, real-world study demonstrates the effectiveness of 1L PEG + Asc in the total and right colon, with a low percentage of patients with AEs in routine clinical practice.

Oral Sulfate Solution Is as Effective as Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid in a Split Method for Bowel Preparation in Patients with Inactive Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized, Multicenter, and Single-Blind Clinical Trial

Background/Aims

Low-volume preparations for colonoscopy are gaining attention for their higher acceptability. However, the efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution (OSS) preparations in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) has not been well known. Therefore, we aimed to compare OSS and 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG+Asc) for bowel preparation in inactive UC.

Methods

A multicenter, randomized, single-blind study was conducted at six tertiary referral hospitals in Korea. Outpatients with UC who had stable disease activity were randomly allocated to the OSS group or the 2-L PEG+Asc group for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The study outcomes included treatment efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability. Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and rated as successful cleansing if the score was ≥6. Patient acceptance and tolerability were assessed using a 4-point ordinal scale. Additionally, disease activity and laboratory data before and after colonoscopy were evaluated to check for safety.

Results

The OSS and 2-L PEG+Asc groups included 92 and 93 participants, respectively. No significant between-group difference was noted in successful cleansing (OSS [96.7%] vs 2-L PEG+Asc [97.8%], p=0.64). Moreover, the safety, acceptance, and tolerability were not significantly different (all p>0.05). Furthermore, no significant changes were found in serum electrolytes or disease activity in either group.

Conclusions

OSS is effective for colonoscopy cleansing, has acceptable tolerability, and does not affect disease activity; thus, it can be used safely for bowel preparation in patients with inactive UC.

Comparison of optimal bowel cleansing effects of 1L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: A randomized controlled study

Various low-volume bowel cleansing formulations that improve compliance have been approved and are being used in clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid with that of sodium picosulfate (PICO) with magnesium citrate. This was a multicenter, randomized controlled, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized into a 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid group and a PICO with magnesium citrate group according to the bowel cleansing agent used. Colonoscopy was performed as a single-blind study wherein the endoscopist had no information about any bowel preparation agent. The efficacy of bowel cleansing was assessed using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and adverse events, preferences, and satisfaction were evaluated using a patient-reported questionnaire before colonoscopy. A total of 254 participants were randomly assigned to two groups: 115 in the 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid group and 113 in the PICO with magnesium citrate group. Overall bowel cleansing success was not statistically different between the two groups (97.4 vs. 97.3%), confirming that 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid was not inferior to PICO with magnesium citrate (lower confidence limit, -4.15%; p = 1.00). High-quality bowel cleansing was achieved in 87% of the 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid group and 77% of the PICO with magnesium citrate group (Lower confidence limit, 1.29%, p = 0.05). In terms of patient satisfaction, PICO with magnesium citrate was better, but compliance and side effects were similar in both groups. The 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid showed similar efficacy and adverse events as PICO with magnesium citrate. Although 1 L PEG with ascorbic acid is very effective in bowel preparation despite its small volume, it is necessary to increase satisfaction such as taste and feeling.

A multicenter randomized phase 4 trial comparing sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The PRECOL trial

Background

Adequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is crucial. Unfortunately, 25% of colonoscopies have inadequate bowel cleansing. From a patient perspective, bowel preparation is the main obstacle to colonoscopy. Several low-volume bowel preparations have been formulated to provide more tolerable purgative solutions without loss of efficacy.

Objectives

Investigate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Sodium Picosulphate plus Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) vs. Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid (PEG-ASC) solutions in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy.

Materials and methods

In this phase 4, randomized, multicenter, two-arm trial, adult outpatients received either SPMC or PEG-ASC for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The primary aims were quality of bowel cleansing (primary endpoint scored according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale) and patient acceptance (measured with six visual analogue scales). The study was open for treatment assignment and blinded for primary endpoint assessment. This was done independently with videotaped colonoscopies reviewed by two endoscopists unaware of study arms. A sample size of 525 patients was calculated to recognize a difference of 10% in the proportion of successes between the arms with a two-sided alpha error of 0.05 and 90% statistical power.

Results

Overall 550 subjects (279 assigned to PEG-ASC and 271 assigned to SPMC) represented the analysis population. There was no statistically significant difference in success rate according to BBPS: 94.4% with PEG-ASC and 95.7% with SPMC (P = 0.49). Acceptance and willing to repeat colonoscopy were significantly better for SPMC with all the scales. Compliance was less than full in 6.6 and 9.9% of cases with PEG-ASC and SPMC, respectively (P = 0.17). Nausea and meteorism were significantly more bothersome with PEG-ASC than SPMC. There were no serious adverse events in either group.

Conclusion

SPMC and PEG-ASC are not different in terms of efficacy, but SPMC is better tolerated than PEG-ASC. SPMC could be an alternative to low-volume PEG based purgative solutions for bowel preparation.

Clinical trial registration

[ClinicalTrials.gov], Identifier [NCT01649674 and EudraCT 2011-000587-10].

Bowel preparation using 2-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen plus lubiprostone versus 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Colonoscopy is a standard procedure for evaluating colon diseases and screening for colorectal cancer, and bowel cleanliness prior to colonoscopy is key. The aim of this study was to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy of low-volume (2 L) split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus single-dose (24 µg) lubiprostone (LB) and high-volume (4 L) split-dose PEG.

Methods

Patients scheduled to undergo outpatient colonoscopy between December 2019 and June 2021 at Rajavithi Hospital were enrolled and randomized into two groups: 2 L PEG + LB or 4 L PEG. Colon cleanliness was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by reviewing images of the colon after completion of colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes comprised cecal intubation rate, procedure time, withdrawal time, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, patient satisfaction, compliance (based on complete ingestion of bowel preparation regimen), willingness to repeat the preparation regimen, and associated adverse events.

Results

One hundred and forty patients were included, with 70 in each group. The mean total and segment-specific BBPS scores were not significantly different between groups. However, the rate of adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the 2 L PEG + LB group than the 4 L PEG group (100% [95% CI 94.6–100] versus 88.4% [95% CI 78.4–94.9], p = 0.004) in the per-protocol analysis. Colonic polyps were the most common finding. The polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and all secondary outcomes were statistically similar in the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The combination of 2 L split-dose PEG plus LB improves bowel cleanliness (based on BBPS scores) to a comparable degree to the standard 4 L split-dose PEG, without additional adverse events and with a lower PEG volume.

From advanced diagnosis to advanced resection in early neoplastic colorectal lesions: Never-ending and trending topics in the 2020s

Colonoscopy represents the most widespread and effective tool for the prevention and treatment of early stage preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in the panorama of cancer screening. In the world there are different approaches to the topic of colorectal cancer prevention and screening: different starting ages (45-50 years); different initial screening tools such as fecal occult blood with immunohistochemical or immune-enzymatic tests; recto-sigmoidoscopy; and colonoscopy. The key aspects of this scenario are composed of a proper bowel preparation that ensures a valid diagnostic examination, experienced endoscopist in detection of preneoplastic and early neoplastic lesions and open-minded to upcoming artificial intelligence-aided examination, knowledge in the field of resection of these lesions (from cold-snaring, through endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, up to advanced tools), and management of complications.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The efficacy and safety of the recently introduced low-volume purgatives in elderly people are not well known. Therefore, in this trial, we aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of two low-volume agents, oral sulfate solution (OSS) and 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc), in elderly people.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, multicenter, non-inferiority trial was performed at three university-affiliated hospitals in South Korea. Outpatients aged 65-80 years, who underwent elective colonoscopy, were enrolled. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 199 subjects were randomized into the OSS (n = 99) or the 2-L PEG-Asc (n = 100) group. Of them, 189 subjects were included in the analysis of the primary outcome (OSS group 95 vs PEG-Asc group 94). The proportion of adequate bowel preparation was 89.5% (85/95) in the OSS group and 93.6% (88/94) in the 2-L PEG-Asc group. OSS was not inferior to 2-L PEG-Asc according to the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -15% (95% confidence interval for the difference, -12.1 to 3.8). Vomiting (11.6% vs 2.1%) and thirst (24.2% vs 11.7%) were more common in the OSS group than in the 2-L PEG-Asc group.

CONCLUSIONS

OSS is an effective low-volume purgative that is non-inferior to 2-L PEG-Asc in elderly people. Both the low-volume agents were identified to be well tolerated and safe in the healthy elderly population.

Efficacy of elobixibat as bowel preparation agent for colonoscopy: Prospective, randomized, multi-center study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Elobixibat is a novel ileal bile acid transporter inhibitor. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the combination of elobixibat and 1 L of polyethylene glycol formulation containing ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) solution versus the combination of sodium picosulfate and 1-L PEG-Asc solution as bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This multi-center, randomized, observer-blinded, non-inferiority study recruited 210 outpatients who were assigned to either the elobixibat plus 1-L PEG-Asc group (group A) or the sodium picosulfate plus 1-L PEG-Asc group (group B). The quality of the bowel cleansing level was assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and compared the bowel cleansing level between the groups. Data regarding bowel preparation time, patients' tolerability, and adverse events were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Data for 196 patients (99 in group A and 97 in group B) were analyzed finally. BBPS was comparable between group A and B (8.3 ± 0.9 vs. 8.3 ± 0.7; P = 0.88). Consequently, the adequate bowel preparation rate in groups A and B was 95.0% and 99.0%, respectively (-4.0%, 95% CI -9.3 to 1.5). Bowel preparation time in group A was similar to that in group B (348.2 ± 79.8 min vs. 330.8 ± 82.5 min; P = 0.13), whereas, sleep disturbance was significantly less frequent in group A than in group B (10.2% vs. 22.7%; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of elobixibat and 1-L PEG-Asc can be considered an alternative bowel preparation for colonoscopy considering the equivalent bowel cleansing effect and less frequent sleep disturbance. The Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs41180026).

Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I² range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.

Validation and Application of Predictive Models for Inadequate Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopies in a Tertiary Hospital Population

Background: Bowel preparation is a major quality criterion for colonoscopies. Models developed to identify patients with inadequate preparation have not been validated in external cohorts. We aim to validate these models and determine their applicability. Methods: Colonoscopies between April and November 2019 were retrospectively included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥2 per segment was considered adequate. Insufficient data, incomplete colonoscopies, and total colectomies were excluded. Two models were tested: model 1 (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, diabetes, constipation, abdominal surgery, previous inadequate preparation, inpatient status, and American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score ≥3); model 2 (co-morbidities, tricyclic antidepressants, constipation, and abdominal surgery). Results: We included 514 patients (63% males; age 61.7 ± 15.6 years), 441 with adequate preparation. The main indications were inflammatory bowel disease (26.1%) and endoscopic treatment (24.9%). Previous surgery (36.2%) and ASA score ≥3 (23.7%) were the most common comorbidities. An ASA score ≥3 was the only identified predictor for inadequate preparation in this study (p < 0.001, OR 3.28). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of model 1 were 60.3, 64.2, 21.8, and 90.7%, respectively. Model 2 had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 57.5, 67.4, 22.6, and 90.5%, respectively. The AUC for the ROC curves was 0.62 for model 1, 0.62 for model 2, and 0.65 for the ASA score. Conclusions: Although both models accurately predict adequate bowel preparation, they are still unreliable in predicting inadequate preparation and, as such, new models, or further optimization of current ones, are needed. Utilizing the ASA score might be an appropriate approximation of the risk for inadequate bowel preparation in tertiary hospital populations.

Efficacy and tolerability of high and low-volume bowel preparation compared: A real-life single-blinded large-population study

BACKGROUND

Low-volume preparations for colonoscopy have shown similar efficacy compared to high-volume ones in randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, most RCTs do not provide data about clinical outcomes including lesions detection rate. Moreover, real-life comparisons are lacking.

AIM

To compare efficacy (both in terms of adequate bowel preparation and detection of colorectal lesions) and tolerability of a high-volume (HV: 4 L polyethylene glycol, PEG) and a low-volume (LV: 2 L PEG plus bisacodyl) bowel preparation in a real-life setting.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled between 1 December 2014 and 31 December 2016. Patients could choose either LV or HV preparation, with a day-before schedule for morning colonoscopies and a split-dose for afternoon procedures. Adequate bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), clinical outcomes including polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile/serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) and cancer detection rate and self-reported tolerability of HV and LV were blindly assessed.

RESULTS

Total 2040 patients were enrolled and 1815 (mean age 60.6 years, 50.2% men) finally included. LV was chosen by 52% of patients (50.8% of men, 54.9% of women). Split-dose schedule was more common with HV (44.7% vs 38.2%, P = 0.005). High-definition scopes were used in 33.4% of patients, without difference in the two groups (P = 0.605). HV and LV preparations showed similar adequate bowel preparation rates (89.2% vs 86.6%, P = 0.098), also considering the two different schedules (HV split-dose 93.8% vs LV split-dose 93.6%, P = 1; HV day-before 85.5% vs LV day-before 82.3%, P = 0.182). Mean global BBPS score was higher for HV preparations (7.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.8 ± 1.6, P < 0.001). After adjustment for sex, age and indications for colonoscopy, HV preparation resulted higher in PDR [Odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95%CI: 1.07-1.63, P = 0.011] and ADR (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.02–1.63, P = 0.038) and comparable to LV in AADR (OR 1.51, 95%CI 0.97-2.35, P = 0.069), SDR and cancer detection rate. The use of standard-definition colonoscopes was associated to lower PDR (adjusted OR 1.59, 95%CI: 1.22-2.08, P < 0.001), ADR (adjusted OR 1.71, 95%CI: 1.26–2.30, P < 0.001) and AADR (adjusted OR 1.97, 95%CI: 1.09-3.56, P = 0.025) in patients receiving LV preparation. Mean Visual Analogue Scale tolerability scored equally (7, P = 0.627) but a ≥ 75% dose intake was more frequent with LV (94.6% vs 92.1%, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

In a real-life setting, PEG-based low-volume preparation with bisacodyl showed similar efficacy and tolerability compared to standard HV preparation. However, with higher PDR and ADR, HV should still be considered as the reference standard for clinical trials and the preferred option in screening colonoscopy, especially when colonoscopy is performed with standard resolution imaging.

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.

Efficacy of macrogol 4000 plus electrolytes in bowel preparation for colonoscopy in patients with chronic constipation

Background

Chronic constipation is a significant factor in poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Macrogol 4000 plus electrolytes (Movicol, EA Pharma, Tokyo, Japan), containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) and electrolytes, have been used recently to treat patients with constipation. However, prospective studies on the use of macrogol 4000 for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of macrogol 4000 in addition to PEG administered in patients with chronic constipation.

Methods

This single-center, single-arm prospective study enrolled patients with chronic constipation who were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of good bowel preparation assessed using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) (6 or more points). The secondary endpoints were the time from when pPEG (MoviPrep, EA Pharma, Tokyo, Japan) was taken until colonoscopy could be started, amount of PEG taken, number of defecations, whether additional PEG doses were taken, and adverse events. Endoscopy-related endpoints included cecal intubation rate, insertion time, observation time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and polyp detection rate (PDR). The tolerability of PEG and macrogol 4000 was assessed using a questionnaire.

Results

Forty patients were included in the analysis. The median BBPS was 7 (range 3–9) and ≥ 6 points in 37 cases (92.5%). The median time until colonoscopy can be started was 210 min (90–360 min), the median volume of PEG taken was 1500 mL (1000–2000 mL), and the median number of defecations was 7 (3–20). No adverse events were observed. Fourteen patients required an additional dose of PEG. Cecal intubation was achieved in all cases, the median insertion time was 6.0 min (range 2.3–22 min), and the median observation time was 8.8 min (range 4.0–16.0 min). The ADR and PDR were 60.0% and 75.0%, respectively. A proportion of patients rated the tolerability of macrogol 4000 and PEG as 95.0% and 50.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

Intake of macrogol 4000 in addition to PEG is effective and safe for colonoscopy in patients with chronic constipation.

Clinical trial registration statement This study was registered in the UMIN-CTR database (UMIN-ID000038315).

Safe and appropriate use of laxatives for colonoscopy

Background: Appropriate bowel preparation is essential for effective colonoscopy. Inadequate use of bowel preparation solutions reduces patient compliance, makes the detection of lesions such as adenoma difficult, and increases the risk of complication such as perforation. Current Concepts: A 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution can be safely used for bowel preparation, even in most individuals with underlying diseases. However, it requires a high preparation-volume intake and has poor patient compliance due to its unpleasant taste. Therefore, a 2- or 1- L sulfate-free, PEG-based laxative was developed to, reduce the amount of PEG and improve the taste. Furthermore, simethicon-containing laxative formulation was developed to eliminate gas bubbles. In addition, oral bowel preparation solutions with enema agents and prokinetics were used to improve bowel preparation, but no improvement was observed. Various alternative laxatives are available; however, PEG-based bowel preparation solutions are still recommended in most cases due to their stability. Discussion and Conclusion: Although a 4-L PEG solutions recommended for bowel preparation in most cases, several laxatives have been introduced to overcome its disadvantages. The laxative agent must be selected according to each patient’s specific characteristics. Moreover, the method of taking bowel preparation solutions and additional bowel preparation medications must be carefully chosen. In addition, patient education via various methods, such as using a smartphone, when taking a bowel preparation agent may help improve bowel preparation quality.

Effect of bowel preparation volume in inpatient colonoscopy. Results of a prospective, randomized, comparative pilot study

Background

Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.

Methods

This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting).

Results

Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.

Conclusion

In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.

Trial registration

The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

The importance of colonoscopy bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal lesions and colorectal cancer prevention

Background and study aims  Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has reduced CRC incidence and mortality and improved prognosis. Optimal bowel preparation and high-quality endoscopic technique facilitate early CRC detection. This review provides a narrative on the clinical importance of bowel preparation for colonoscopy and highlights available bowel preparations. Methods  A PubMed search was conducted through June 2019 to identify studies evaluating clinical outcomes, efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with bowel preparation for CRC screening-related colonoscopy. Results  Selecting the optimal bowel preparation regimen is based on considerations of efficacy, safety, and tolerability, in conjunction with individual patient characteristics and preferences. Available bowel preparations include high-volume (4 L) and low-volume (2 L and 1 L), polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions, sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate/magnesium oxide plus anhydrous citric acid, sodium phosphate tablets, and the over-the-counter preparations magnesium citrate and PEG-3350. These preparations may be administered as a single dose on the same day or evening before, or as two doses administered the same day or evening before/morning of colonoscopy. Ingesting at least half the bowel preparation on the day of colonoscopy (split-dosing) is associated with higher adequate bowel preparation quality versus evening-before dosing (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.9-3.4). Conclusions  High-quality bowel preparation is integral for optimal CRC screening/surveillance by colonoscopy. Over the last 30 years, patients and providers have gained more options for bowel preparation, including low-volume agents with enhanced tolerability and cleansing quality that are equivalent to 4 L preparations. Split-dosing is preferred for achieving a high-quality preparation.

Comparison of Oral Sulfate Solution and Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid on the Efficacy of Bowel Preparation

Background/Aims

The quality of bowel preparation is one of the quality indicators for colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of oral sulfate solution (OSS) and polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-AA) for bowel preparation.

Methods

The study involved 167 patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopies. Inadequate bowel preparation was defined as any score of ≤1 in each colon section based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the efficacy of OSS and PEG-AA. Subgroup analyses were performed based on patient characteristics.

Results

Overall, 106 (63.5%) patients received OSS, and 61 (36.5%) patients received PEG-AA. The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 12.3% in patients receiving OSS and 32.8% in patients receiving PEG-AA (p=0.001). OSS (odds ratio [OR] = 0.26; p=0.003) and morning examination (OR=0.11; p=0.038) were significantly associated with efficient bowel preparation. The efficacy of OSS compared with PEG-AA was only significant in patients ≥50 years of age vs. <50 years of age (OR=0.13; p=0.001 vs. OR=0.96; p=0.959) and female vs. male patients (OR=0.06; p=0.002 vs. OR=0.58; p=0.339).

Conclusions

OSS was significantly more efficient for bowel preparation than PEG-AA, especially in patients ≥50 years of age and female patients. Morning examination led to a good quality of bowel preparation, irrespective of the preparation regimen.

[Optimal Laxatives for Oral Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation: from High-volume to Novel Low-volume Solutions]

Optimal bowel preparation is essential for a more accurate, comfortable, and safe colonoscopy. The majority of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers can be explained by procedural factors, mainly missed polyps or inadequate examination. Therefore the most important goal of optimal bowel preparation is to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. Although adequate preparation should be achieved in 85-90% or more of all colonoscopy as a quality indicator, unfortunately 20-30% shows inadequate preparation. Laxatives for oral colonoscopy bowel preparation can be classified into polyethylene glycol (PEG)-electrolyte lavage solution, osmotic laxatives, stimulant laxatives, and divided into high-volume solution (≥3 L) and low-volume solution (<3 L). The updated 2019 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline is broadly similar to the 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommendations and reaffirms the importance of split-dosing. However, new ESGE guideline, unlike the 2014 ASGE recommendation, suggests the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG based agents that have been clinically validated for most outpatient scenarios. For effective, safe, and highly adherent bowel preparation, physicians who prescribe and implement colonoscopy should properly know the advantages and limitations, the dosing, and the timing of regimens. Recently many studies have attempted to find the most ideal regimens, and more convenient, effective, and safe regimens have been developed by reducing the dosing volume and improving the taste. The high tolerability and acceptability of the new low-volume regimens suggest us how we should use it to increase the participation of the national colorectal cancer screening program.

Comparative Efficacy of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Alone or With Ascorbic Acid vs. 4 L Polyethylene Glycol for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of 12 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Colonoscopy remains an optimal approach for early detection and treatment of gastrointestinal lesions, however adequate bowel preparation is the critical contributor to effective and safe colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel cleansing regime has been the first recommendation before colonoscopy, however it remains unknown which regime is the optimal option. Aim: The aim of our study is to determine the comparative efficacy of 2 L PEG alone or plus ascorbic acid (Asc) vs. 4 L PEG alone for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy. Methods: We assigned two independent investigators to search and screen potential records, extract essential information, and appraise the risk of bias of individual study accordingly. Then, we adopted RevMan 5.3, Stata 14.0, and WinBUGS 1.4 software to perform all statistical analyses. We also calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SCURA) in order to rank all regimes. Results: Twelve studies involving 4,106 patients were analyzed finally. Pooled results indicated an improved bowel preparation efficacy in 2 L PEG plus ascorbic acid with split-dose regime rather than in 2 L PEG plus ascorbic acid (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.18-0.36), 4 L PEG with split dose (OR, 3.18; 95% CI, 2.17-4.66), and 4 L PEG (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.07-6.67) regimes, which was confirmed by network meta-analyses; a better compliance in 2 L PEG plus Asc with split dose (OR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.51-6.30) and 4 L PEG with split dose (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.82) regime rather than in 4 L PEG regime, but network meta-analyses generated inconsistency results; a higher preference in 2 L PEG plus Asc with split dose regime rather than in 4 L PEG split dose (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.02-4.90), which were not supported by network meta-analyses; no statistically significant difference when all regimes compared with each other in terms of adverse events. Conclusions: As for bowel preparation before colonoscopy, 2 L PEG ascorbic acid with split dose should be optimally prescribed. Further studies investigating the comparative efficacy of 2 L PEG related to 4 L PEG, 4 L PEG with split dose, and 2 L PEG plus ascorbic acid with split dose, respectively are needed.

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 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.

Comparison of asymmetric (low morning-dose) and standard split-dose regimen of PEG plus bisacodyl for bowel preparation: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Reducing the morning dose of PEG solution may be a reliable strategy to improve the patient compliance of split-dose regimens without affecting efficacy of bowel cleansing.

AIMS

to compare the efficacy for bowel cleansing of an asymmetric split-dose regimen (25% of the dose on the day of colonoscopy and 75% on the day before) with the standard split-dose regimen.

METHODS

Outpatients were enrolled in a randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial. All subjects received a split-dose preparation with a 2L PEG-citrate-simethicone plus Bisacodyl. Patients were randomly assigned to: group A, asymmetric split-dose regimen; group B, symmetric split-dose regimen. Primary endpoint was the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing.

RESULTS

Split-dose was taken by 81 and 80 patients in group A and B. Adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 92.6% and 92.5% patients in group A and B (p = 1.000). No differences were observed regarding Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score, adenoma detection rate and scores of each colon segment.

CONCLUSIONS

The reduction of morning dose of PEG in a split-dose regimen is not inferior to the standard split-dose regimen in achieving an adequate bowel cleansing. However, further studies are needed to evaluate whether asymmetric preparation is associated to a higher tolerability compared to symmetric split-dose regimen. (NCT03146052).

Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation (NER1006): proof of concept assessment versus standard 2 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbate - a randomized, parallel group, phase 2, colonoscopist-blinded trial

Background

Colonoscopy requires colon cleansing. For this, many polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based preparations still require a high preparation-volume intake. Using an increased osmotic load with ascorbate (Asc), five new low-volume PEG-based bowel preparations (LVPEG) were tested for clinical proof of concept.

Methods

This two-part, open-label study examined preparation-volumes of 1–1.25 L and total required fluid volumes of 2–3 L. Part 1, in healthy volunteers, used mean cumulative 24-h stool weight (target > 2750 g) to identify a lead candidate. Part 2 was endoscopist-blinded: patients undergoing screening colonoscopy were randomized before treatment with the selected lead, one of two variants of it, or the control 2 L PEG + Asc. Two primary endpoints were used for proof of concept demonstration: mean 24-h stool weight and bowel cleansing success (Harefield Cleansing Scale).

Results

A total of 120 subjects (30 per group) were enrolled/randomized 1:1:1:1 (max 40:60 gender ratio) per completed Part. In Part 1, LVPEG-3 achieved the largest mean stool weight (3399 g: P < 0.0001 vs target) and was selected for Part 2. In Part 2, stool weights exceeded the target, notably for LVPEG-4 (3215 g: P < 0.001), which achieved 100% cleansing success after a total required fluid intake of 2 L. The control achieved 90% cleansing success. Adverse events were few, gastrointestinal in nature and similar between groups.

Conclusions

LVPEG-4 achieved a clinically useful combination of cleansing, safety/tolerability and low consumption volume: 1 L preparation + 1 L required additional fluid. Named NER1006, LVPEG-4 demonstrated clinical proof of concept and warrants further investigation.

Trial registration

October 2012.

Identifier: NCT01714466. EudraCT: 2012–003052-37

The trial was prospectively registered.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12876-019-0988-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Low-Volume Polyethylene Glycol Improved Patient Attendance in Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis

Background: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been regarded as the primary recommendation for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, a conclusive conclusion has not yet been generated.

Aim: We performed this updated meta-analysis to further investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of low volume preparation based on PEG plus ascorbic acid related to 4L PEG.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted to retrieve potential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 2000 to April 2018. Two independent searchers critically searched all potential citations, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias accordingly. Moreover, we used the STATA 12.0 and trial sequential analysis (TSA) 0.9 to complete all analyses.

Results: A total of 13 RCTs enrolling 3,910 patients met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis based on PP analysis indicated that compared to standard volume PEG regime, low volume regime improved patient compliance RR = 1.01; 95% CIs = 1.00, 1.03; P = 0.143 (≥75% intake); RR = 1.07; 95% CIs = 1.00, 1.14; P = 0.046 (100% intake), the willingness to repeat the same regime (RR = 1.30; 95% CIs = 1.07, 157; P = 0.007), and patient acceptability (RR = 1.18; 95% CIs = 1.07, 1.29; P = 0.001), and decreased the overall adverse events (RR = 0.86; 95% CIs = 0.77, 0.96; P = 0.009). However, no difference was observed between these two different solutions for bowel preparation efficacy (RR = 0.98; 95% CIs = 0.95, 1.02; P = 0.340). These all results were further confirmed by TSA.

Conclusions: The effect of low volume regime was not inferior to the standard volume PEG regime, and low volume regime was associated with better compliance when subjects ingested all the solution, willingness to repeat the same regime, higher acceptability, and lower nausea in non-selected population.

Strategies to optimise the quality of bowel cleansing

Colonoscopy is the gold standard procedure for detecting neoplastic lesions of the colon and its efficiency is closely linked to the quality of the procedure. Adequate bowel preparation is a crucial factor in achieving the recommended quality indicators, but poor preparation has been reported in up to 30% of outpatients referred for colonoscopy. Consequently, over recent years, a number of studies have developed strategies to optimise bowel cleansing by improving adherence and tolerance to and the efficacy of the bowel preparation. Moreover, the identification of risk factors for inadequate bowel cleansing has led to tailored bowel preparation strategies being designed, with promising results. We aimed to review studies that assessed risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation and strategies to optimise bowel cleansing in patients at high risk of having poor preparation.

Efficacy of 1.2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparations

BACKGROUND

A low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution that combines ascorbic acid with PEG-based electrolyte solution (PEG-ASC) is gaining mainstream acceptance for bowel preparation due to reduced volume and improved taste. Although several reports showed that bowel preparation with PEG-ASC volume lower than 2.0 L with laxative agents could be an alternative to traditional preparation regimen, the cleansing protocols have not been fully investigated.

AIM

To evaluate the cleansing efficacy of 1.2 L PEG-ASC solution comparing with 2.0 L PEG electrolyte (PEG-ELS) for bowel preparations.

METHODS

A randomized, single-blinded, open-label, single-center, non-inferiority study was conducted. In total, 312 Japanese adult patients (aged > 18 years) who underwent colonoscopy were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to bowel lavage with either 1.2 L of PEG-ASC solution with at least 0.6 L of an additional clear fluid (1.2 L PEG-ASC group) or 2.0 L of PEG-ELS (PEG-ELS group). Then, 48 mg of sennoside was administered at bedtime on the day before colonoscopy, and the designated drug solution was administered at the hospital on the day of colonoscopy. Bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The volume of fluid intake and required time for bowel preparation were evaluated. Furthermore, compliance, patient tolerance, and overall acceptability were evaluated using a patient questionnaire, which was assessed using a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

In total, 291 patients (1.2 L PEG-ASC group, 148; PEG-ELS group, 143) completed the study. There was no significant difference in successful cleansing, defined as a BBPS score ≥ 2 in each segment, between the two groups (1.2 L PEG-ASC group, 91.9%; PEG-ELS group, 90.2%; 95%CI: -0.03-0.09). The required time for bowel preparation was significantly shorter (164.95 min ± 68.95 min vs 202.16 min ± 68.69 min, P < 0.001) and the total fluid intake volume was significantly lower (2.23 L ± 0.55 L vs 2.47 L ± 0.56 L, P < 0.001) in the 1.2 L PEG-ASC group than in the PEG-ELS group. Palatability, acceptability of the volume of solution, and overall acceptability evaluated using a patient questionnaire, which was assessed by the visual analog scale, were significantly better in the 1.2 L PEG-ASC group than in the PEG-ELS group (7.70 cm ± 2.57 cm vs 5.80 cm ± 3.24 cm, P < 0.001). No severe adverse event was observed in each group.

CONCLUSION

The 1.2 L PEG-ASC solution was non-inferior to the 2.0 L PEG-ELS solution in terms of cleansing efficacy and had better acceptability among Japanese patients.

Sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol before elective colonoscopy in outpatients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To determine the best option for bowel preparation [sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol (PEG)] for elective colonoscopy in adult outpatients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines was performed using Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Central, Cinahl and Lilacs. No restrictions were placed for country, year of publication or language. The last search in the literature was performed on November 20^th, 2017. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. The subjects included were adult outpatients who underwent bowel cleansing for elective colonoscopy. The included studies compared sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) and PEG for bowel preparation. Exclusion criteria were the inclusion of inpatients or groups with specific conditions, failure to mention patient status (outpatient or inpatient) or dietary restrictions, and permission to have unrestricted diet on the day prior to the exam. Primary outcomes were bowel cleaning success and/or tolerability of colon preparation. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, polyp and adenoma detection rates. Data on intention-to-treat were extracted by two independent authors and risk of bias assessed through the Jadad scale. Funnel plots, Egger’s test, Higgins’ test (I²) and sensitivity analyses were used to assess reporting bias and heterogeneity. The meta-analysis was performed by computing risk difference (RD) using Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with fixed-effects (FE) and random-effects (RE) models. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) version 6.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration) was the software chosen to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

662 records were identified but only 16 trials with 6200 subjects were included for the meta-analysis. High heterogeneity among studies was found and sensitivity analysis was needed and performed to interpret data. In the pooled analysis, SPMC was better for bowel cleaning [MH FE, RD 0.03, IC (0.01, 0.05), P = 0.003, I² = 33%, NNT 34], for tolerability [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.03, 0.13), P = 0.002, I² = 88%, NNT 13] and for adverse events [MH RE, RD 0.13, IC (0.05, 0.22), P = 0.002, I² = 88%, NNT 7]. There was no difference in regard to polyp and adenoma detection rates. Additional analyses were made by subgroups (type of regimen, volume of PEG solution and dietary recommendations). SPMC demonstrated better tolerability levels when compared to PEG in the following subgroups: “day-before preparation” [MH FE, RD 0.17, IC (0.13, 0.21), P < 0.0001, I² = 0%, NNT 6], “preparation in accordance with time interval for colonoscopy” [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.15), P = 0.02, I² = 54%, NNT 13], when compared to “high-volume PEG solutions” [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.14), I² = 89%, P = 0.02, NNT 13] and in the subgroup “liquid diet on day before” [MH RE, RD 0.14, IC (0.06,0.22), P = 0.0006, I² = 81%, NNT 8]. SPMC was also found to cause fewer adverse events than PEG in the “high-volume PEG solutions” [MH RE, RD -0.18, IC (-0.30, -0.07), P = 0.002, I² = 79%, NNT 6] and PEG in the “low-residue diet” subgroup [MH RE, RD -0.17, IC (-0.27, 0.07), P = 0.0008, I² = 86%, NNT 6].

CONCLUSION

SPMC seems to be better than PEG for bowel preparation, with a similar bowel cleaning success rate, better tolerability and lower prevalence of adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowel preparation for colonoscopy (Clensia): a multicenter randomized observer-blind clinical trial vs. a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid (PEG-ASC)

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Quality of inspection during colonoscopy is strictly related to the level of cleansing. High-volume (PEG-based) solutions are highly effective and safe, but their high volume affects tolerability and compliance. The aim of this study was to compare a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone solution (PMF 104,Clensia) with a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid solution (PEG-ASC; Moviprep).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This was a multicenter, randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial, where patients were randomized between PMF 104 and PEG-ASC. In both groups, patients were instructed to take a full-dose regimen the evening before if colonoscopy was scheduled before 11 am to 12 pm, or to take a split regimen if colonoscopy was scheduled after 11 am to 12 pm. The primary end-point was an equivalence between PMF104 and PEG-ASC in the rate of adequate level of cleansing (Ottawa scale ≤ 6), with safety, mucosal visibility, tolerability, acceptance and compliance being also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 403 enrolled, 367 patients (Mean age [SD]: 55.6 (14.4) years; male:166 [45.2 %]) were included in the per protocol (PP) analysis: 184 being randomized in the PMF 104 group and 183 in the PEG-ASC group. Successful bowel cleansing was 78.3 % and 74.3 % in PMF104 and in PEG-ASC, respectively ( P  = 0.37). Both preparations were equally safe (mild adverse events were observed in 9.2 % and 9.3 % of patients in the PMF104 and in the PEG-ASC group, respectively) and acceptable (no or mild distress during the intake in 81.4 % and 80.8 % in the PMF104 in the PEG-ASC, respectively [ P  = 0.74]).

CONCLUSION

The new low-volume product Clensia is equivalent to the reference low-volume PEG-ASC in terms of bowel cleansing, safety and acceptance.

Research progress on patient comfort during bowel preparation

Bowel preparation is one of the key and necessary steps for preoperative preparations of multiple operations such as electronic colonoscopy, capsule endoscopy, barium X-ray, colorectal surgery, gynecology surgery, and urology surgery. Although better methods for bowel preparation have been explored continuously, patient intolerance still exists during the current bowel preparation process. Adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting often occur, leading to poor comfort experience and affecting the patient's compliance and bowel preparation results. This article reviews the factors influencing patient comfort during bowel preparation and the corresponding interventions.

Efficacy and tolerability of 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIM

Previous studies comparing 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solution with ascorbic acid (PEG/Asc) with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SP/MC) drew inconclusive results. This study aimed to compare a 2-L-PEG/Asc with SP/MC by split method in bowel cleansing efficacy, tolerability, and safety and to identify factors influencing inadequate bowel preparation.

METHOD

We performed a prospective randomized, endoscopist-blinded, single-center, controlled trial. The Aronchick scale and Ottawa bowel preparation scale (OBPS) were used to evaluate the bowel cleansing efficacy, and patients' tolerability and preferences were assessed by questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 223 patients were randomized to receive 2-L-PEG/Asc (n = 109) or SP/MC (n = 114). There was no significant difference in overall bowel cleansing efficacy between the two groups; however, when analyzing by individual segment, mean bowel cleansing efficacy of right colon showed a trend in favor of SP/MC group than in PEG/Asc group (OBPS; 1.55 ± 0.66 vs. 1.74 ± 0.88, P = 0.08). Furthermore, SP/MC was better tolerated than PEG/Asc based on ease of consumption and preference to receive the agents again in the future. Total adverse events were significantly lower in SP/MC group than PEG/Asc group (47.4 vs. 62.4%, P = 0.031). In multivariate analysis, later colonoscopic starting time was the only independent factor predicting inadequate bowel preparation (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.156-1.692, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in overall bowel cleansing efficacy between PEG/Asc and SP/MC; however, SP/MC showed better tolerability and safety profile than PEG/Asc. The independent factor for inadequate bowel preparation was later colonoscopic starting time when applied split method.

Comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Protocol for an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been considered as the first recommendation for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. A previous meta-analysis suggested that low volume PEG may improve the acceptability of ingesting bowel preparation solution. However, several limitations impaired the power of findings from this published meta-analysis, such as the variation in study design of included trials and adjuvant prescriptions. Moreover, some studies related to this topic have been published recently. And thus, the aim of this updated meta-analysis is to further assess the comparative efficacy of low volume versus standard volume of PEG on bowel preparation before colonoscopy with trial sequential analysis (TSA).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Systematic searches will be performed to capture any potential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the comparative efficacy of low volume versus traditional standard volume PEG on bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Moreover, we will also manually check the bibliographies of related studies and reviews so as to get additional studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the citation records, extract essential information, and appraise the risk of bias of each RCT in sequence. Finally, we will used the STATA software version 12.0 and TSA software version beta 0.9 to statistically analyze all data and test the robust of each pooled result, respectively.

RESULTS

We will submit the full-text of systematic review to a peer-review journal for publication.

CONCLUSION

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with TSA will further assess the comparative efficacy and safety of low-volume versus traditional standard volume PEG for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. And then, a more comprehensive evidence body on low-volume compared to standard volume PEG in bowel preparation will be constructed.

Impact of patient audiovisual re-education via a smartphone on the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a single-blinded randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Education on preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of audiovisual (AV) re-education via a smartphone on bowel preparation quality before colonoscopy.

METHODS

A prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled study was performed. Patients who underwent colonoscopy with 3 purgatives, including 4 L of polyethylene glycol (4-L PEG), 2 L of PEG with ascorbic acid (2-L PEG/Asc), and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), were enrolled and randomized into the AV re-education via smartphone group (AV group, n = 160) and a control group (n = 160). The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The secondary outcomes included instruction adherence using adherence score (AS) and patient satisfaction with education using a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients (AV group, n = 139; control group, n = 144) were analyzed per protocol. The mean BBPS (7.53 vs 6.29, P < .001) and the proportion with adequate preparation were higher in the AV group. The mean BBPS of the AV group was significantly higher than that of the control group for the 2-L PEG/Asc and SPMC preparations, but not for the 4-L PEG preparation. The mean AS and the mean VAS score were all significantly higher in the AV group. Among the 3 purgatives, the mean AS was lowest in the 4-L PEG group (P = .041).

CONCLUSIONS

AV re-education via smartphone was easy and convenient, and enhanced preparation quality, patient adherence to instructions, and patient satisfaction.

Efficacy and Acceptability of 1 Liter of Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid vs. 2 Liters of Polyethylene Glycol Plus Mosapride and Sennoside for Colonoscopy Preparation

BACKGROUND [color=black]Bowel preparation is an important factor for an optimal outcome of colonoscopy. Recently, polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution has been in common use for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy, but some patients are intolerant of PEG because of taste or volume. A low-volume PEG administered with ascorbic acid solution (PEG-Asc) was designed to improve tolerability, but the administration of this method is more complex than that with PEG alone. This study aimed to compare bowel cleansing efficacy, safety, and tolerability of 1 L PEG-Asc with a 2 L PEG preparation with use of sennosides and mosapride.[/color] MATERIAL AND METHODS [color=black]This was a prospective, single-center, non-inferiority trial that included 112 patients (PEG-Asc group, 68; PEG group, 44). The primary endpoint was the efficacy of colon cleansing assessed by endoscopists using a validated 4-point scale according to the Aronchick scale and was verified by a blinded investigator. Acceptability, tolerability, and adenoma detection rate (ADR) of these 2 regimens were secondary endpoints.[/color][color=black] [/color] RESULTS [color=black]We found no statistically significant differences between the groups in colon-cleansing efficacy or in the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Moreover, overall, patients significantly favored PEG-Asc over PEG, reflecting better acceptance of PEG-Asc. Additionally, more patients favored PEG-Asc over PEG for a hypothetical future colonoscopy. [/color] CONCLUSIONS [color=black]The alternate 1 L PEG-Asc regimen and standard 2 L PEG regimen were clinically equivalent with respect to cleansing efficacy, safety, and ADR, and more patients favored PEG-Asc than PEG. This alternate regimen may improve patient compliance and acceptance of surveillance colonoscopy.[/color].

A head-to-head comparison of 4-L polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions before colonoscopy: which is the best? A multicentre, randomized trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG) to sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and low-volume polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (PEGA) in a single- or split-dose regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicentre study. Outpatients received either PEG or SPMC or PEGA in a single or a split dose before the colonoscopy. Quality and tolerability of the preparation and complaints during preparation were recorded.

RESULTS

Nine hundred seventy-three patients were analysed. Satisfactory bowel cleansing (Aronchick score 1 + 2) was more frequent when a split dose was used irrespective of the solution type (PEG 90.1 vs 68.8%, PEGA 86.0 vs 71.6%, SPMC 84.3 vs 60.2%, p < 0.001). SPMC was the best tolerated followed by PEGA (p < 0.006) and PEG as the worst (p < 0.001). Tolerability did not correlate with the regimen and amount of the solution used. Female gender is associated with a higher incidence of nausea, vomiting and pain (p < 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Both PEG, PEGA and SPMC are fully comparable in terms of colonic cleansing when used in similar regimens. The split-dose preparation is more effective in all agents. SPMC and PEGA are better tolerated than PEG. The preparation regimen and/or the volume do not affect tolerability.

Effects of polyethylene glycol 2 L alone or with ascorbic acid compared with polyethylene glycol 4 L alone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy has been regarded as a standard method of detecting and removing gastrointestinal lesions early, while adequate bowel preparation is the prerequisite of determining the diagnostic accuracy and treatment safety of this process. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) based bowel preparation regimens remain the first recommendation, but the optimal option is still uncertain. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is to determine the optimal PEG based bowel preparation regimen before colonoscopy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will assign two investigators to independently search all potential citations, screen records, abstract essential information and appraise the risk of bias accordingly. Then, random effects pairwise and network meta-analyses of RCTs comparing PEG 2 L alone or with ascorbic acid with PEG 4 L alone will be performed using RevMan 5.3 (Copenhagen, Denmark: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2013), Stata 14 (StataCorp, Texas, USA) and WinBUGS 1.4 (Imperial College School of Medicine, St Mary's, London, UK) from January 2000 to April 2017. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve will also be calculated in order to rank the regimens.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval and patient written informed consent will not be required because all of the analyses in the present study will be performed based on data from published studies. We will submit our systematic review and network meta-analysis to a peer reviewed scientific journal for publication.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42017068957.

Comparison of 4-L Polyethylene Glycol and 2-L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid in Patients with Inactive Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Although colonoscopy preparation may cause symptom flares in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), little is known about the standard preparation regimen in this population.

AIM

We aimed to compare 4L polyethylene glycol (4L-PEG) with 2L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2L-PEG-Asc) in quiescent UC patients.

METHODS

Patients with inactive UC undergoing colonoscopy for surveillance or checkup of mucosal healing were prospectively enrolled at 5 tertiary hospitals. They were randomly assigned to 4L-PEG and 2L-PEG-Asc groups. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used for the preparation quality. Symptoms were assessed using the Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) before colonoscopy, at 1 and 4 weeks after the procedure.

RESULTS

Overall, 109 patients were included in the study (4L-PEG group 53, 2L-PEG-Asc group 56, the mean age at diagnosis 42.25 years, male 77). The quality of preparation was comparable between the groups (BBPS ≥ 6, 96.2 vs. 92.9%, p = 0.679). Although 26 patients (23.8%) had increased SCCAI scores within 4 weeks after colonoscopy, resulting in a medication dose-up or add-on in 3 patients (2.7%), the rise in scores was not different between the groups. No serious adverse events during preparation were observed in either group. However, the 2L-PEG-Asc group was more likely to be willing to repeat the preparation with the same agent than the 4L-PEG group (82.1 vs. 64.2%, respectively, p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

PEG-based regimens with different volumes are equally effective and safe in inactive UC patients. 2L-PEG-Asc is more acceptable in this population as indicated by the willingness for further usage.

Comparison of a split-dose bowel preparation with 2 liters of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid and 1 liter of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid and bisacodyl before colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recently, a low-volume polyethylene glycol formulation containing ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) has proven as safe and effective as traditional 4-L PEG solutions for colonoscopy preparation. However, currently available aqueous purgative formulations are poorly tolerated. The aim of this study was to compare a split-dose 2-L PEG-Asc formulation and a 1-L PEG-Asc formulation with bisacodyl (10 mg) to determine the quality of bowel cleansing and patient tolerability.

METHODS

A single-center, randomized, observer-blinded study was performed between May 2015 and September 2015. Two hundred outpatients referred for colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled and assigned to either the split-dose 2-L PEG-Asc group or the 1-L PEG-Asc with bisacodyl 10-mg group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Aronchick Bowel Preparation Scale (ABPS) were used to evaluate bowel cleansing. The tolerability of the regimens and satisfaction of patients was determined based on a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients received either 2-L PEG-Asc or 1-L PEG-Asc with bisacodyl. Regarding colon cleansing outcome (BBPS and ABPS), the 1-L PEG-Asc with bisacodyl group showed similar but non-inferior results compared with the 2-L PEG-Asc group on both BBPS (6.92 ± 1.63 vs 6.57 ± 1.37; P = .103) and ABPS (96% vs 95%; P = 1.000) scales. Tolerability was similar for both 1-L PEG-Asc with bisacodyl and 2-L PEG-Asc.

CONCLUSIONS

1-L PEG-Asc is a suitable alternative to low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Our study showed that the 1-L PEG-Asc plus bisacodyl preparation has comparable tolerability and results in adequate colon cleansing. Bowel preparation with bisacodyl and 1-L PEG-Asc is a suitable alternative to low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02980562.).

Clinical Trial of 1000 Subjects Randomized to 5 Low-Volume Bowel Preparations for Colonoscopy and Their Acceptance of Split-Dose Bowel Preparations

BACKGROUND

We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of 5 low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

STUDY

We performed an investigator-blinded, randomized trial of 5 bowel preparations: 64 ounces of Gatorade and 306 or 357 g of PEG, both given the day prior; Gatorade and 306 g PEG, 2 L PEG-electrolyte solution with ascorbic acid, and sulfate solution, all 3 given as a split dose. One thousand outpatients consumed their preparation before a morning colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was colon cleanliness assessed by the Chicago Bowel Preparation Scale (BPS). Tolerability was assessed using a subject questionnaire. Another primary endpoint was patient acceptance of a split-dose bowel preparation assessed using a subject questionnaire.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in the modified Chicago BPS were found among Gatorade and 357 g of PEG given as a day-prior dose and the 3 split-dose arms with 98.5% of colons cleansed adequately. The Gatorade and 357 g of PEG had significantly lower Chicago BPS fluid scores and Chicago BPS total scores (indicating dryer colons that required more irrigation) than the 3 split-dose arms. The Gatorade and PEG preparations were better tolerated. Many subjects are unwilling to consume a split-dose preparation and the majority of subjects would prefer a day-prior preparation with this preference highly dependent on the type of preparation they just consumed.

CONCLUSIONS

The cleanliness of the colons was not significantly different among the 3 split-dose preparations. Day-prior dosing of Gatorade and 357 g of PEG allowed the mucosa to be visualized as well as did the split-dose preparations.

Optimal intake of clear liquids during preparation for afternoon colonoscopy with low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The standard colonoscopy preparation regimen in Japan for afternoon procedures is sequential intake of 1 L of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution containing ascorbic acid (PEG-ASC), 0.5 L of clear liquid, 0.5 L of PEG-ASC, and finally 0.25 L of clear fluids (all at a rate of 0.25 L every 15 min). However, this regimen seems poorly tolerated and complicated for many patients compared to previous regimen of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution. The aim of this study was to evaluate an alternate regimen of 0.5 L of PEG-ASC followed by 0.25 L clear liquids, repeated 3 times.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a single-blinded, non-inferiority, randomized controlled study. Subjects were randomized to the standard regimen or the alternate regimen using a web-based registry system. All patients were instructed to eat a pre-packaged, low residue diet and to take sodium picosulfate hydrate the day before colonoscopy. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used to evaluate bowel cleansing, and a 3-point scale was used to assess mucosal visibility. The primary endpoint was successful bowel cleansing. The acceptability, tolerability, safety, and endoscopic findings of these two regimens were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

 A total of 409 patients were randomized to either the standard regimen (n = 204, males 54.0 %, mean age 65.5 years) or the alternate regimen (n = 205, 54.6 %, 65.0 years). The rates of successful bowel cleansing were 71.1 % (64.3 - 77.2 %) with the standard regimen vs. 75.1 % (68.6 - 80.9 %) with the alternate regimen (95 % lower confidence limit, for the difference = - 4.6, non-inferiority P  < 0.05). No significant differences were found in tolerability, safety, and endoscopic findings.

CONCLUSION

 The alternate regimen and standard regimen are clinically equivalent with respect to cleansing efficacy and acceptability, tolerability, safety, and endoscopic findings. These results are good news for patients with difficulty drinking the first liter of PEG-ASC.