Predictive factors for missed adenoma on repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on initial colonoscopy: A KASID multicenter study

Boston bowel preparation scale score 6 has more missed lesions compared with 7-9

Adequate bowel preparation is an important factor in high-quality colonoscopy. It is generally accepted that a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score ≥ 6 is adequate, but some reports suggest ≥ 7. Subjects who underwent colonoscopy at least twice within 3 years from August 2015 to December 2019 were included. Polyp detection rates (PDRs), adenoma detection rates (ADRs), and number of polyps including adenomas were compared stratified by baseline colonoscopy (C1) BBPS score. Among 2352 subjects, 529 had BBPS 6 (group 1) and 1823 had BBPS 7-9 (group 2) at C1. There was no significant difference in PDR or ADR at C1 and follow-up colonoscopy (C2) between the two groups. However, the numbers of polyps (1.84 vs. 1.56, P = 0.001) and adenomas (1.02 vs. 0.88, P = 0.034) at C2 were significantly higher in group 1 than group 2, respectively. Segmental BBPS score 2 in group 1 compared to group 2, especially, showed higher PDR (P = 0.001) and ADR (P = 0.007) at C2. BBPS 6 is associated with a higher number of polyps and adenomas in short-term follow-up colonoscopy than BBPS 7-9. To reduce the risk of missed polyps, a thorough examination is necessary for BBPS 6.

Correlation between prescribing doctor attributes and intestinal cleanliness in colonoscopy: a study of 22522 patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the correlation between different attributes of doctors who prescribe colonoscopies and the cleanliness of the intestine to guide the development of colonoscopy application protocols.

METHODS

Data on colonoscopy cases conducted in the gastroenterology department of Hangzhou First People's Hospital between April 2018 and March 2021 were collected. The gender, age, professional attributes of the prescribing doctors, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score were recorded. In addition, the correlation between the prescribing doctors' characteristics and the intestine's cleanliness was analyzed.

RESULTS

The study included 22,522 patients with a mean BBPS score of 6.83 ± 1.94. There were 16,459 male and 6,063 female doctors with similar BBPS scores (p = 0.212). The study found no significant difference in BBPS scores between 19,338 internist and 3,184 non-internist (p = 0.154). However, BBPS scores differed significantly between 18,168 gastroenterologists and 4,354 non-gastroenterologists (p = 0.016) and between 19,990 intestinal-related specialties(gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery) and 2,532 non-intestinal-related specialties (p = 0.000). In addition, BBPS scores were significantly different between 18,126 prescribing endoscopiests and 4,396 non-endoscopiests (p = 0.014). However, there was no significant difference in BBPS scores among doctors of different ages (p = 0.190). The study found significant differences in BBPS scores between male and female patients and those under or over 40 years (p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

To improve colonoscopy preparation quality, priority should be given to doctors in gastroenterology, intestinal-related specialties, and endoscopiests. Their expertise may result in better education and improved bowel cleanliness.

Preparing for Colonoscopy in People with Diabetes: A Review with Suggestions for Clinical Practice

People with diabetes have an increased risk of adverse events during the peri-colonoscopy period, including hypoglycemia, lactic acidosis, diabetic ketoacidosis and acute kidney injury. This is secondary to inadequate dietary modification, the bowel preparation and antihyperglycemic agent modification. With the availability of many new diabetes agents, endoscopists need updated guidance. This review of current literature provides a practical approach to antihyperglycemic agent modification in the context of colonoscopy preparation, as well as guidelines on dietary changes, the bowel preparation itself and glucose monitoring.

Automated Detection of Bowel Preparation Scoring and Adequacy With Deep Convolutional Neural Networks

INTRODUCTION

Adequate bowel preparation is integral to effective colonoscopy. Inadequate bowel preparation has been associated with reduced adenoma detection rate and increased post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). As a result, the USMSTF recommends early interval reevaluation for colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation. However, bowel preparation documentation is highly variable with subjective interpretation. In this study, we developed deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN) to objectively ascertain bowel preparation.

METHODS

Bowel preparation scores were assigned using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Bowel preparation adequacy and inadequacy were defined as BBPS ≥2 and BBPS <2, respectively. A total of 38523 images were extracted from 28 colonoscopy videos and split into 26966 images for training, 7704 for validation, and 3853 for testing. Two DCNNs were created using a Densenet-169 backbone in PyTorch library evaluating BBPS score and bowel preparation adequacy. We used Adam optimiser with an initial learning rate of 3 × 10-4 and a scheduler to decay the learning rate of each parameter group by 0.1 every 7 epochs along with focal loss as our criterion for both classifiers.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy for BBPS subclassification and determination of adequacy was 91% and 98%, respectively. The accuracy for BBPS 0, BBPS 1, BBPS 2, and BBPS 3 was 84%, 91%, 85%, and 96%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We developed DCCNs capable of assessing bowel preparation adequacy and scoring with a high degree of accuracy. However, this algorithm will require further research to assess its efficacy in real-time colonoscopy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Comparison of adenoma detection in different colorectal segments between deep-sedated and unsedated colonoscopy

To investigate if deep-sedated colonoscopy affects adenoma detection in certain colorectal segment. Review of colonoscopy reports, electronic images and medical records of individuals underwent screening colonoscopy with or without propofol sedation between October 2020 and March 2021 from seven hospitals in China. A total of 4500 individuals were analyzed. There was no significant difference in ADR between deep-sedated colonoscopy and unsedated colonoscopy [45.4% vs. 46.3%, P > 0.05]. The APP of deep-sedated colonoscopy was lower than unsedated colonoscopy (1.76 ± 0.81 vs. 2.00 ± 1.30, P < 0.05). Both average number of adenomas and luminal distention score of splenic flexure and descending colon were lower in deep-sedated colonoscopy (P < 0.05), and average number of adenomas was positively correlated with an improved distension score in splenic flexure and descending colon (splenic flexure r = 0.031, P < 0.05; descending colon r = 0.312, P < 0.05). Linear regression model showed deep-sedated colonoscopy significantly affected luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon as well as average number of adenomas detected in splenic flexure (P < 0.05). Deep-sedated colonoscopy decreased adenoma detection in splenic flexure and the luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon compared with unsedated colonoscopy.

Rectal Evacuation Disorders are Associated With Poor Bowel Preparation in Patients With Chronic Constipation: Results From Two Centers

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated factors that can predict the adequacy of bowel preparation in patients with chronic constipation undergoing colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients with chronic constipation who underwent anorectal manometry and at least 1 colonoscopy at 2 tertiary referral centers from 2003 to 2019. We also identified a subgroup of patients who underwent colonic transit testing through radiopaque marker testing. We determined demographic, medical, and constipation-related factors associated with poor bowel preparation and their effect on standardized quality metrics using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 274 patients with chronic constipation who underwent anorectal manometry testing. Both outlet dysfunction (prolonged balloon expulsion) and slow-transit constipation were associated with suboptimal bowel preparation. Outlet dysfunction was also associated with decreased cecal intubation rates, adenoma detection rates, and sessile serrated polyp detection rates. In multivariable analyses controlling for demographics and known factors associated with poor bowel preparation, outlet dysfunction was associated with an almost 3-fold odds of suboptimal bowel preparation [odds ratio (OR): 2.9; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-5.1] and a 3-fold reduction in cecal intubation rates (OR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1-0.8). Among those with radiopaque marker colonic transit testing available, slow-transit constipation was associated with a >2-fold odds of suboptimal bowel preparation (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1-4.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Among a cohort of patients with chronic constipation undergoing colonoscopy, outlet dysfunction was associated with suboptimal bowel preparation and other quality metrics. Constipated patients with a rectal evacuation disorder may represent a subgroup of patients that could benefit from individualized strategies for better bowel preparation.

Relationship between Health Literacy and Knowledge, Compliance with Bowel Preparation, and Bowel Cleanliness in Older Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

Compared to young adults, it is difficult for the older people with relatively low health literacy to perform proper bowel preparation for a colonoscopy. This study aims to identify the relationship between knowledge, compliance with bowel preparation, and bowel cleanliness with health literacy in older patients undergoing colonoscopy. The participants were 110 older people undergoing colonoscopy, recruited from an endoscopy hospital in G metropolitan city, South Korea. Data obtained from a structured questionnaire that included items on health literacy and knowledge of and compliance with bowel preparation, and the Aronchick bowel cleanliness scale. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, χ-test, Pearson's correlation, t-test, and ANCOVA. Participants who were younger and those with a higher education level and better economic status had a statistically significantly higher health literacy level. Older people with a health literacy level of 7 points and above had a higher knowledge level and bowel cleanliness index, a showed better compliance with bowel preparation. The results highlight the need for developing a customized education intervention program that can improve health literacy for successful bowel preparation and examination of the older population undergoing colonoscopy.

Opportunistic Colonoscopy Cancer Screening Pays off in Romania-A Single-Centre Study

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed cancer in men (after prostate and lung cancers) and in women (after breast and lung cancer). It is the second cause of cancer death in men (after lung cancer) and the third one in women (after breast and lung cancers). It is estimated that, in EU-27 countries in 2020, colorectal cancer accounted for 12.7% of all new cancer diagnoses and 12.4% of all deaths due to cancer. Our study aims to assess the opportunistic colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy in a private hospital. A secondary objective of this study is to analyse the adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and colorectal cancer (CRC) detection rate. We designed a retrospective single-centre study in the Gastroenterology Department of Saint Mary Hospital. The study population includes all individuals who performed colonoscopies in 2 years, January 2019–December 2020, addressed to our department by their family physician or came by themselves for a colonoscopy. One thousand seven hundred seventy-eight asymptomatic subjects underwent a colonoscopy for the first time. The mean age was 59.0 ± 10.9, 59.5% female. Eight hundred seventy-three polyps were found in 525 patients. Five hundred and twenty-five had at least one polyp, 185 patients had two polyps, 87 had three polyps, and 40 patients had more than three polyps. The PDR was 49.1%, ADR 39.0%, advanced adenomas in 7.9%, and carcinomas were found in 5.4% of patients. In a country without any colorectal cancer screening policy, polyps were found in almost half of the 1778 asymptomatic patients evaluated in a single private center, 39% of cases adenomas, and 5.4% colorectal cancer. Our study suggests starting screening colonoscopy at the age of 45. A poor bowel preparation significantly impacted the adenoma detection rate.

Comparison of Right Colon Adenoma Miss Rates Between Water Exchange and Carbon Dioxide Insufflation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

GOALS

To test the hypothesis that water exchange (WE), when compared with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, significantly reduces the right colon adenoma miss rate (rAMR) in a blinded randomized controlled trial with cap-assisted colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND

The unblinded consecutive group observational data showed that WE significantly decreased rAMR. The unblinded data are limited by potential bias.

STUDY

Consecutive patients aged 45 years or more were randomized to undergo insertion with WE or CO2. Withdrawal and polypectomy were performed with CO2 in both groups to the hepatic flexure. The colonoscope was reinserted to the cecum. A second colonoscopist re-examined the right colon. The second colonoscopist was unaware, but made a guess, of the initial insertion method. The number of additional adenomas divided by the total number detected in both examinations equaled rAMR.

RESULTS

Among 262 patients (131/group), demographic variables were similar. The body mass index was significantly higher in the WE group. Compared with CO2, WE significantly decreased rAMR [18.0% (33/183) vs. 34.6% (62/179), P=0.0025] and right colon serrated polyp miss rate [17.4% (27/155) vs. 39.3% (33/84), P=0.002]. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that WE was an independent predictor of rAMR (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.86), and so was ≥2 adenomas in the right colon (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-4.76). Whether the second colonoscopist guessed the insertion method correctly or not, and demographic and procedure variables were not associated with rAMR.

CONCLUSIONS

The randomized controlled trial validated unblinded observational data showing that WE significantly decreased rAMR and right colon serrated polyp miss rate (clinical trial registration number: NCT03845933).

[Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer: Causes and Prevention of Interval Colorectal Cancer]

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the worldwide. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for screening and surveillance of CRC. Removing adenomas by colonoscopy has lowered the incidence and mortality of CRC. However, colonoscopy is imperfect for detection of colorectal neoplasia. After a colonoscopy that is negative for malignancy, CRC can be diagnosed. These are termed as post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). The proportion of PCCRC, among all CRC was reported to be 1.8% to 9.0%. It occurred 2.4 times more in the right colon than in the left colon. The causes of PCCRC are missed lesions, incomplete resection, and new lesions. Among these causes, missed lesion and incomplete resection are procedural factors and preventable. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the quality of colonoscopy to minimize the occurrence of PCCRC.

Impact of Inadequate Bowel Cleansing on Colonoscopic Findings in Routine Screening Practice

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is an imperfect gold standard for detecting colorectal neoplasms because some proportion of adenomas may be missed, mainly small lesions. This proportion is expected to be higher in case of inadequate bowel cleansing, which is frequently seen in routine practice. We estimated the proportions of neoplasms that are in principle detectable by colonoscopy but might be missed in case of incomplete bowel preparation.

METHODS

For 8,193 participants of screening colonoscopy in South-Western Germany, recruited between 2005 and 2016, the prevalence and numbers of different findings were extracted from colonoscopy reports and compared according to the reported bowel preparation quality.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation quality was reported as good, poor, or was unspecified in 30.3%, 11.1%, and 58.6% of colonoscopy records. Reported prevalences of nonadvanced adenomas (NAAs) were similar among participants with poor and unspecified bowel preparation quality but substantially lower than among participants with good bowel preparation (adjusted prevalence rate ratio [RR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.96). The differences were observed for proximal but not for distal NAAs (RRs 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71-0.95 and 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82-1.10).

DISCUSSION

Our study suggests that a significant proportion of NAAs located in the proximal colon might be missed during colonoscopy if bowel cleansing is not adequate. Major efforts should be made to further facilitate and enhance high-quality bowel preparation in routine screening practice.

Risk factors for metachronous adenoma in patients with stage I/II colorectal cancer after radical surgery

Background

It is important to implement a preventive strategy for early detection and endoscopic removal of metachronous adenoma in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Here, we retrospectively explored the associated factors of metachronous adenoma in these patients.

Methods

This study recruited 551 patients with stage I and II CRC who underwent radical surgery between January 1, 2012 and July 1, 2017 with postoperative colonoscopic surveillance. Data on clinicopathological characteristics and surveillance colonoscopies were obtained from medical records. Univariate analysis by Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate analysis by Cox proportional hazards model were used to identify the factors associated with metachronous adenoma.

Results

Metachronous adenoma was detected in 110 (20.0%) patients. In these patients, 94.5% (104/110) had metachronous adenoma within 3 years postoperatively. Age, synchronous adenoma, hypertension, tumor stage, and surgical resection were correlated with metachronous adenoma in patients with stage I-II CRC after radical resection (log rank test, P<0.05). Multivariate analyses showed that synchronous adenoma (HR =2.515, 95% CI: 1.691-3.742, P<0.01); stage II (HR =2.066, 95% CI: 1.329-3.210, P<0.01); and left-side colorectal resection (HR =2.207, 95% CI: 1.292-3.772, P<0.01) were independent risk factors.

Conclusions

Synchronous adenoma, left-side colorectal resection, and stage II cancer are independent risk factors of metachronous adenoma in patients with previous stage I and II CRC. In patients with risk factors, an enhanced colonoscopic strategy might be needed for early detection and timely endoscopic removal of metachronous adenoma.

Risk factors associated with missed colorectal lesions in colonoscopy and impact of colonoscopy with anesthesia on miss rate

OBJECTIVES

To systematically determine the miss rate and risk factors for polyps, adenomas and advanced adenomas in the same population, and to further analyze the impact of colonoscopy with anesthesia on miss rate.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the information of the patients undergoing the second colonoscopy within 1 year after their first. The patient and lesion miss rate were calculated. The patient and lesion features of missed lesion were compared with non-missed lesion. Finally, the patients were divided into anesthesia group and without anesthesia group, and the impact of colonoscopy with anesthesia on missed lesions was further analyzed.

RESULTS

The patient miss rate of polyps, adenomas and advanced adenomas was 32.8, 25.6 and 10.4%, and the lesions miss rate was 19.6, 15.8 and 7.2%. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, lesion-related factors (large number of lesions, small lesion size, flat shape and location at the right colon) and patient-related factors (male, elder, abdominal symptoms, surgical history, diverticulum, colonoscopy without anesthesia and suboptimal bowel preparation) were found to be independently associated with missed polyps and adenomas (p < .05). Large number of lesions, flat shape and suboptimal bowel preparation were associated with missed advanced adenoma (p < .05). Colonoscopy with anesthesia can reduce the polyp miss rate (PMR) and male and elderly patients are more likely to be missed during colonoscopy without anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Many factors of patients and lesions can affect the lesions miss rate. Colonoscopy with anesthesia can reduce the PMR and male and elderly patients are more likely to be missed during colonoscopy without anesthesia.

Factors affecting bowel preparation adequacy and procedural time

Background and Aim

Poor bowel preparation results in difficult colonoscopies, missed lesions, and repeat procedures. Identifying patient risk factors for poor bowel preparation, such as prolonged runway time and prolonged cecal intubation, will aid in interventions prior to a procedure.

Methods

This was a retrospective, single‐center analysis of 3 295 colonoscopies performed between May 2012 and November 2014. Indications for colonoscopy included gastrointestinal bleed and anemia, change in bowel habits, for screening, and others (including planning re‐anastomoses, abdominal distension, family history and angioectasias). Data were collected from medical charts and endoscopy reports. Comparisons between patient factors and runway time were made with adequacy of bowel preparation as the primary outcomes.

Results

Male and diabetic patients had statistically higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation and prolonged cecal intubation times. A previous history of abdominal surgery also demonstrated prolonged cecal intubation. A runway time of ≤7.63 h was associated with higher rates of adequate bowel preparation by multivariate analysis. The optimal time frame is 3–6 h for the highest success rates.

Conclusion

Patient risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or prolonged cecal intubation should signal clinicians to intervene prior to colonoscopy. A runway time between 3 and 6 h is optimal for adequate bowel preparation. This may involve further patient education, along with work flow optimization, to facilitate ideal runway times. Future studies should explore how to avoid repeat endoscopies using protocols enforcing this timeframe.

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

BACKGROUND

Split-dose bowel preparation is recommended for morning colonoscopy, although a same-day dose regimen is an alternative for afternoon colonoscopy. Same-day preparation for morning colonoscopy has rarely been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the bowel cleansing efficacy, bowel movement kinetics, safety profile, and patient tolerability of split-dose and same-day preparation using 4-L polyethylene glycol.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, randomized, assessor-blinded study.

SETTINGS

This study was performed at a tertiary center in Korea.

PATIENTS

Study subjects were randomly assigned to the same-day or split-dose groups. For the same-day dose group, 4 L of polyethylene glycol were ingested on the day of colonoscopy starting at 5:00 AM for morning colonoscopy or 7:00 AM for afternoon colonoscopy. In the split-dose group, 2 L of polyethylene glycol were ingested at 9:00 PM the day before colonoscopy, and the remaining 2 L from 7:00 AM for morning colonoscopy or from 10:00 AM for afternoon colonoscopy. Colonoscopy was performed from 10:00 AM.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The efficacy of bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Boston bowel preparation scale. The participants completed questionnaires asking about adverse events, bowel movement kinetics, and tolerability of the preparation before colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 339 subjects were included (same-day dose = 172; split dose = 167). One subject in each group did not undergo colonoscopy. The rate of successful cleansing did not differ between the groups (same-day dose = 98.8% vs split dose = 98.2%; p = 0.681). There were no instances of hemodynamic instability or aspiration in either group. Tolerability, including overall satisfaction and willingness to reuse, were comparable between the groups.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center study.

CONCLUSIONS

The bowel cleansing efficacy, safety profile, and tolerability of same-day dosing with polyethylene glycol were comparable with those of split dose. Therefore, same-day dosing with 4 L of polyethylene glycol is a feasible bowel preparation method. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B44. COMPARACIÓN DE LA EFICACIA DE LA LIMPIEZA INTESTINAL, LA SEGURIDAD, LA CINÉTICA DEL MOVIMIENTO INTESTINAL Y LA TOLERABILIDAD DEL PACIENTE DE LA PREPARACIÓN INTESTINAL EN EL MISMO DÍA Y EN DOSIS DIVIDIDAS UTILIZANDO 4 L DE POLIETILENGLICOL: UN ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO ALEATORIZADO: Se recomienda la preparación del intestino en dosis divididas para la colonoscopia de la mañana, aunque un régimen de una sola dosis el mismo día es una alternativa para la colonoscopia en la tarde. La preparación de una sola dosis el mismo día para la colonoscopia matutina rara vez se ha evaluado.Comparamos la eficacia de la limpieza intestinal, la cinética del movimiento intestinal, el perfil de seguridad y la tolerabilidad del paciente de la dosis dividida y la preparación el mismo día utilizando 4 L de polietilenglicol.Este fue un estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado, cegado por el evaluador.Este estudio se realizó en un centro terciario en Corea.Los sujetos del estudio fueron asignados aleatoriamente a el grupo de una dosis en el mismo día o al grupo de dosis dividida. Para el grupo de dosis del mismo día, se ingirieron 4 L de polietilenglicol el día de la colonoscopia a partir de las 5 a.m. para la colonoscopia de la mañana o las 7 a.m. para la colonoscopia de la tarde. En el grupo de dosis dividida, se ingirieron 2 L de polietilenglicol a las 9 p.m. el día anterior a la colonoscopia, y los otros 2 L restantes a partir de las 7 a.m. para la colonoscopia de la mañana o desde las 10 a.m. para la colonoscopia de la tarde. La colonoscopia se realizó a partir de las 10 a.m.La eficacia de la limpieza intestinal se evaluó mediante la escala de preparación intestinal de Boston. Los participantes completaron cuestionarios preguntando sobre los eventos adversos, la cinética del movimiento intestinal y la tolerabilidad de la preparación antes de la colonoscopia.Se incluyeron un total de 339 sujetos (dosis el mismo día, 172; dosis dividida, 167). Un sujeto en cada grupo no se sometió a colonoscopia. La tasa de limpieza exitosa no difirió entre los grupos (dosis el mismo día, 98.8% versus dosis dividida, 98.2%; p = 0.681). No hubo casos de inestabilidad hemodinámica o aspiración en ninguno de los grupos. La tolerabilidad, incluida la satisfacción general y la voluntad de reutilización, fueron comparables entre los grupos.Este fue un estudio de centro único.La eficacia de la limpieza intestinal, el perfil de seguridad y la tolerabilidad de la dosificación en el mismo día con polietilenglicol fueron comparables con los de la dosis dividida. Por lo tanto, la dosificación en el mismo día con 4 L de polietilenglicol es un método factible de preparación intestinal. Vea el video del resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B44.

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.