Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Simethicone for gastrointestinal endoscopic visibility

Capsule endoscopy for small bowel bleed: Current update

Small intestine, hitherto an obscure area for endoscopists before 2000, is now easily evaluated non-invasively using capsule endoscopy and invasively by device-assisted enteroscopies. Major advances in understanding the causes and management of small bowel diseases have been in obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleed, currently re-named as small bowel bleed, after the discovery of capsule endoscopy. The current article is a narrative review of the technology of capsule endoscopy, its advantages and limitations, future perspective and Indian studies on its utility in patients with small bowel bleed. Till date, eight large series reporting 2319 patients with obscure GI bleed (1554 overt and 765 occult) undergoing capsule endoscopy have been reported from India. Overall yield of capsule endoscopy to detect lesions in these studies varied from 43.5% to 90%. The major causes detected in various studies for small bowel bleed include vascular malformation, portal hypertensive enteropathy, ulcer, stricture, tumor, polyps, etc. Hookworm can cause both occult as well as overt small bowel bleed as shown mainly from India. Capsule endoscopy has also been quite safe in patients with small bowel bleed as despite 0.6% to 15% retention of imaging capsule in Indian studies, development of clinically evident small bowel obstruction has rarely been reported. The major limitations of capsule endoscopy include lack of maneuvrability and therapeutic capability. Research is in progress to overcome some of the limitations of the current capsule endoscopy system. It is concluded that discovery of capsule endoscopy has brought a new paradigm in GI endoscopy and explored a hitherto unexplored area of GI tract, i.e. small bowel that continued to be a black box for the endoscopists.

Evaluation of the synbiotic effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and mushroom extract on the growth performance, digestive enzyme activity, and immune status of zebrafish danio rerio

BACKGROUND

The quest for candidate probiotics and prebiotics to develop novel synbiotics for sustainable and profitable fish farming remains a major focus for various stakeholders. In this study, we examined the effects of combining two fungal probiotics, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Aspergillus niger with extracts of Jerusalem artichoke and white button mushroom to develop a synbiotic formulation to improve the growth and health status of zebrafish (Danio rerio). An initial in vitro study determined the most effective synbiotic combination, which was then tested in a 60-day in vivo nutritional trial using zebrafish (80 ± 1.0 mg) as a model animal. Four experimental diets were prepared: a control diet (basal diet), a prebiotic diet with 100% selected mushroom extract, a probiotic diet with 107 CFU of S. cerevisiae/g of diet, and a synbiotic diet with 107 CFU of S. cerevisiae/g of diet and 100% mushroom extract. As readouts, growth performance, survival, digestive enzyme activity and innate immune responses were evaluated.

RESULTS

In vitro results showed that the S. cerevisiae cultured in a medium containing 100% mushroom extract exhibited the maximum specific growth rate and shortest doubling time. In the in vivo test with zebrafish, feeding them with a synbiotic diet, developed with S. cerevisiae and mushroom extract, led to a significant improvement in the growth performance of zebrafish (P < 0.05). The group of zebrafish fed with the synbiotic diet showed significantly higher levels of digestive enzyme activity and immune responses compared to the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Taken together, these results indicated that the combination of S. cerevisiae and mushroom extract forms an effective synbiotic, capable of enhancing growth performance and immune response in zebrafish.

Effect of simethicone for the management of early abdominal distension after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter retrospective propensity score matching study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether simethicone expediates the remission of abdominal distension after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

This retrospective study involved LC patients who either received perioperative simethicone treatment or not. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to minimize bias. The primary endpoint was the remission rate of abdominal distension within 24 h after LC. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify independent risk factors affecting the early remission of abdominal distension after LC. Subsequently, a prediction model was established and validated.

RESULTS

A total of 1,286 patients were divided into simethicone (n = 811) and non-simethicone groups (n = 475) as 2:1 PSM. The patients receiving simethicone had better remission rates of abdominal distension at both 24 h and 48 h after LC (49.2% vs. 34.7%, 83.9% vs. 74.8%, respectively), along with shorter time to the first flatus (14.6 ± 11.1 h vs. 17.2 ± 9.1 h, P < 0.001) compared to those without. Multiple logistic regression identified gallstone (OR = 0.33, P = 0.001), cholecystic polyp (OR = 0.53, P = 0.050), preoperative abdominal distention (OR = 0.63, P = 0.002) and simethicone use (OR = 1.89, P < 0.001) as independent factors contributing to the early remission of abdominal distension following LC. The prognosis model developed for predicting remission rates of abdominal distension within 24 h after LC yielded an area under the curve of 0.643 and internal validation a value of 0.644.

CONCLUSIONS

Simethicone administration significantly enhanced the early remission of post-LC abdominal distension, particularly for patients who had gallstones, cholecystic polyp, prolonged anesthesia or preoperative abdominal distention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2200064964 (24/10/2022).

The Effect of Oral Simethicone in a Bowel Preparation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

Current guidelines suggest adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its effect on key quality indicators for screening colonoscopy remains unclear. The primary aim was to assess the rate of adequate bowel preparation in split-dose high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), with or without simethicone.

Methods

This is an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, including patients scheduled for colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 L of PEG split dose (PEG) or 4 L of PEG split dose plus 500 mg oral simethicone (PEG + simethicone). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, the preparation quality regarding bubbles using the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS), ADR, CIR, and the intraprocedural use of simethicone were recorded.

Results

We included 191 and 197 patients in the PEG + simethicone group and the PEG group, respectively. When comparing the PEG + simethicone group versus the PEG group, no significant differences in adequate bowel preparation rates (97% vs. 93%; p = 0.11) were found. However, the bubble scale score was significantly lower in the PEG + simethicone group (0 [0] versus 2 [5], p < 0.01), as well as intraprocedural use of simethicone (7% vs. 37%; p < 0.01). ADR (62% vs. 61%; p = 0.86) and CIR (98% vs. 96%, p = 0.14) did not differ between both groups.

Conclusion

Adding oral simethicone to a split-bowel preparation resulted in a lower incidence of bubbles and a lower intraprocedural use of simethicone but no further improvement on the preparation quality or ADR.

High volume, low volume, or pills, which way should we go? a review of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of adult cancer-related deaths in the United States. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for CRC screening. Adequate bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy is essential for good visualization, which results in higher polyp detection rates and shorter procedural times. Achieving adequate preparation prior to colonoscopy is accomplished approximately 75% of the time. This review covers current recommendations and recent updates in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Split-dose bowel preparation is recommended, but recent studies show that same day, low-volume preparations are noninferior. Low-volume polyethylene glycol with electrolytes + ascorbic acid can achieve high-quality bowel preparation and 1-day, low-residue diets prior to colonoscopy, particularly prepackaged low-residue diets, can lead to better outcomes. Utilizing visual aids and artificial intelligence in the form of smartphone applications and quality prediction systems can also lead to higher rates of bowel preparation adequacy.

SUMMARY

An individualized approach should be used to decide on the best preparation option for patients. Lower volume, same day preparations are available and lead to better patient tolerability and compliance, along with less stringent precolonoscopy diets. Smartphone applications and artificial intelligence will allow us to better educate and guide patients with regards to following preparation instructions.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Recent research on the application of defoamers in children undergoing digestive endoscopy]

Endoscopy is a common tool for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in children. The presence of bubbles in the gastrointestinal tract is one of the important factors affecting the clarity of endoscopic visual field, and the application of defoamers can significantly reduce bubbles in the gastrointestinal tract, improve the quality of gastrointestinal preparation, and further increase disease detection rate. Various studies have been conducted on gastrointestinal preparation before endoscopy in children, but there still lacks a uniform protocol for the application of defoamers. This article summarizes the use of defoamers in children before digestive endoscopy and related research advances and points out that existing studies on defoamers have a small sample size and that there are still controversies over the selection and timing of administration, so as to provide a reference for in-depth research on defoamers in the future.

Use of Simethicone After Capsule Ingestion and Its Impact on the Quality of Small Bowel Video Capsule Endoscopy: A Pilot Study

Background Small bowel capsule endoscopy is a tool to visualize the small bowel (SB) for conditions such as obscure bleeding. Various studies have been performed to compare various bowel preparation regimens in terms of small bowel transit time (SBTT), small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ), and diagnostic yield (DY). Literature suggests that using polyethylene glycol (PEG) prep is significantly better compared to clear liquid and overnight fast in terms of SBVQ and DY. Other investigators have tried to assess the efficacy of adding simethicone to the bowel preparation regimen which seems to improve SBVQ. However, no studies have been done to assess the results of simethicone ingestion after capsule swallowing. We intend to give patients simethicone one hour after capsule ingestion for two consecutive hours and compare results for SBVQ pre-and post-ingestion groups. The objective of this study is to compare the effect of simethicone on SBVQ in pre- and post-capsule ingestion groups. Methodology This prospective, randomized controlled trial included patients who were scheduled for outpatient capsule endoscopy at Albany Medical Center (AMC) Endoscopy Suite. Patients were divided into the control group, group 1, and the treatment group (group 2). The control group followed the standard AMC pre-capsule protocol that included PEG 238 g the evening prior. Group 1 included patients who received 3 mL of simethicone (20 mg/0.3 mL) 20 minutes prior to ingesting the capsule. The treatment group (group 2) included patients who ingested simethicone 3 mL 20 minutes prior to capsule swallowing, 3 mL after one hour, and 1.5 mL after another hour, totaling 7.5 mL of simethicone. Data regarding SBVQ for every patient were evaluated as an individual zone score from 1-3 points, each in proximal, middle, and distal SB based on the SBTT. A cumulative score of 3-9 was given after adding the three zones. These scores were derived using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Data analysis was done using Microsoft Excel software. Results There were six patients in the control group, eight in group 1, and eight in the treatment group (group 2). Proximal, middle, and distal SB did not show any significant difference between their SBVQ scores. Moreover, the total combined score also showed no statistical difference in the SBVQ score. Conclusions There were no statistically significant differences in the SBVQ neither while looking at the cumulative score nor individual segmental score of the entire SB. However, this is only a pilot project with a small number of subjects and results may differ in future studies with increased power.

Minimizing the Risks of Simethicone in Endoscope Reprocessing

This statement was written under the auspices of the World Gastroenterology Organization's Guidelines Committee. The authors are members of the Review Team of the WGO Endoscope Disinfection Guideline and have experience in endoscopy, endoscope reprocessing, and microbiology, including biofilms. During the preparation of the WGO Update on Endoscope Disinfection Guidelines, concerns about simethicone on endoscope channel surfaces compromising cleaning and disinfection were raised. Publications on simethicone, including modes of delivery, effectiveness, and risks, have been reviewed. The paper was written as a companion to the new guidelines with a focus on minimizing the risks of simethicone in endoscope reprocessing.

The Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score: a prospective validation study

BACKGROUND : Assessment of mucosal visualization during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be improved with a standardized scoring system. To address this need, we created the Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score (TUGCS). METHODS : We developed the TUGCS using Delphi methodology, whereby an international group of endoscopy experts iteratively rated their agreement with proposed TUGCS items and anchors on a 5-point Likert scale. After each Delphi round, we analyzed responses and refined the TUGCS using an 80 % agreement threshold for consensus. We used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess inter-rater and test-retest reliability. We assessed internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha and item-total and inter-item correlations with Pearson's correlation coefficient. We compared TUGCS ratings with an independent endoscopist's global rating of mucosal visualization using Spearman's ρ. RESULTS : We achieved consensus with 14 invited participants after three Delphi rounds. Inter-rater reliability was high at 0.79 (95 %CI 0.64-0.88). Test-retest reliability was excellent at 0.83 (95 %CI 0.77-0.87). Cronbach's α was 0.81, item-total correlation range was 0.52-0.70, and inter-item correlation range was 0.38-0.74. There was a positive correlation between TUGCS ratings and a global rating of visualization (r = 0.41, P = 0.002). TUGCS ratings for EGDs with global ratings of excellent were significantly higher than those for EGDs with global ratings of fair (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION : The TUGCS had strong evidence of validity in the clinical setting. The international group of assessors, broad variety of EGD indications, and minimal assessor training improves the potential for dissemination.

Enteroscopy in diagnosis and treatment of small bowel bleeding: A Delphi expert consensus

BACKGROUND

Enteroscopy plays an important role in the management of small bowel bleeding. However, current guidelines are not specifically designed for small bowel bleeding and recommendations from different international societies do not always align. Consequently, there is heterogeneity in the definitions of clinical entities, clinical practice policies, and adherence to guidelines among clinicians. This represents an obstacle to providing the best patient care and to obtain homogeneous data for clinical research.

AIMS

The aims of the study were to establish a consensus on the definitions of bleeding entities and on the role of enteroscopy in the management of small bowel bleeding using a Delphi process.

METHODS

A core group of eight experts in enteroscopy identified five main topics of small bowel bleeding management and drafted statements on each topic. An expert panel of nine gastroenterologists participated in three rounds of the Delphi process, together with the core group.

RESULTS

A total of 33 statements were approved after three rounds of Delphi voting.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi consensus proposes clear definitions and a unifying strategy to standardize the management of small bowel bleeding. Furthermore, it provides a useful guide in daily practice for both clinical and technical issues of enteroscopy.

Prospective cohort study to evaluate premedication with simethicone and n-acetilcysteine for upper diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

The use of premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is not widely established in western countries. The primary aim of the study was to compare gastric visibility according to the total visibility score (TVS). The secondary aim was to assess complications, diagnostic yield, endoscopic procedure time, sedation dose and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A single center prospective cohort study was performed of consecutive adults undergoing an UGE in the afternoon working shift. After completing enrolment in the control group, patients were administered 200 mg simethicone and 500 mg N-acetylcysteine diluted in 100 ml of water >15 minutes before the procedure. All procedures were recorded and a single, blinded endoscopist evaluated the TVS after recruitment of both cohorts. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Spanish translation of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire.

RESULTS

205 patients were included in the study, 103 females (50.2%) with a median age of 54.8-years (IQR: 41.2-65.2). 104 were enrolled to the control group and 101 to the intervention group. Patients receiving premedication presented a higher rate of adequate (74.3% vs 45.2; difference 95% CI: 16,3-41,9%, p<0.001) and excellent gastric visibility (23.8% vs 7.7%; difference 95% CI: 6,3-25,8%, p=0.002). Propofol dose was similar, although the median procedure time was lower in the group of no intervention [5 (IQR: 4-7) vs 6 minutes (IQR: 5-7); p=0.03]. Procedure related adverse events were similar, except that patient without premedication experienced more nausea episodes. Major and minor endoscopic findings and the satisfaction questionnaire showed no differences between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving premedication with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine had a better gastric visibility score, without any increase in adverse events or affecting the patients' satisfaction.

Preparation of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) with simethicone: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is disputed about optimal bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of simethicone in intestinal preparation for SBCE.

METHODS

We searched four databases (PubMed, web of science, Embase, and Scopus databases) for relevant studies. Studies evaluating the effect of simethicone as an adjunct to SBCE bowel preparation were included. The random-effects model was applied to calculate the risk estimates. Primary outcomes include the degree of gas bubbles and small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ). Secondary outcomes include diagnostic yield (DY), gastric transit time (GTT), small bowel transit time (SBTT), and completion rate (CR).

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were included (8 RCTs, 1 prospective, and 1 retrospective study). Compared with the control group, the simethicone group showed significant improvements in the degree of gas bubbling (RR = 2.05, 95%CI:1.56-2.71, P < 0.001, I² = 62%) and SBVQ (RR = 1.41, 95%CI: 1.20-1.65, P < 0.001, I² = 16%). Subgroup analysis showed that the SBVQ of simethicone group was better than fasting (RR = 2.62, 95% CI:1.49-4.59, P < 0.001, I² = 0%), mannitol (RR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.14-1.59, P < 0.001, I² = 0%) and PEG group (RR = 1.32, 95%CI:1.06-1.65, P = 0.01, I² = 0%). No significant associations were found for DY, GTT, SBTT, and CR.

CONCLUSIONS

Simethicone for bowel preparation is useful to improve visualization and reduce the gas bubbling of SBCE.

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.

Evaluation by a Machine Learning System of Two Preparations for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy: The BUBS (Burst Unpleasant Bubbles with Simethicone) Study

Background: Bubbles often mask the mucosa during capsule endoscopy (CE). Clinical scores assessing the cleanliness and the amount of bubbles in the small bowel (SB) are poorly reproducible unlike machine learning (ML) solutions. We aimed to measure the amount of bubbles with ML algorithms in SB CE recordings, and compare two polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based preparations, with and without simethicone, in patients with obscure gastro-intestinal bleeding (OGIB). Patients & Methods: All consecutive outpatients with OGIB from a tertiary care center received a PEG-based preparation, without or with simethicone, in two different periods. The primary outcome was a difference in the proportions (%) of frames with abundant bubbles (>10%) along the full-length video sequences between the two periods. SB CE recordings were analyzed by a validated computed algorithm based on a grey-level of co-occurrence matrix (GLCM), to assess the abundance of bubbles in each frame. Results: In total, 105 third generation SB CE recordings were analyzed (48 without simethicone and 57 with simethicone-added preparations). A significant association was shown between the use of a simethicone-added preparation and a lower abundance of bubbles along the SB (p = 0.04). A significantly lower proportion of “abundant in bubbles” frames was observed in the fourth quartile (30.5% vs. 20.6%, p = 0.02). There was no significant impact of the use of simethicone in terms of diagnostic yield, SB transit time and completion rate. Conclusion: An accurate and reproducible computed algorithm demonstrated significant decrease in the abundance of bubbles along SB CE recordings, with a marked effect in the last quartile, in patients for whom simethicone had been added in PEG-based preparations, compared to those without simethicone.

Effect of oral simethicone on the quality of colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the effect of oral simethicone (SIM), an antifoaming agent, on the quality of colonoscopy in terms of bowel preparation quality, adenoma or polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR).

METHODS

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of SIM during bowel preparation for colonoscopy published up to 17 March 2021 were identified from the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Bowel preparation quality, ADR/PDR/CIR, cecal intubation time (CIT), withdrawal time (WT), patients' tolerability, acceptability and volume of foam and bubbles were compared between the SIM and non-SIM groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight RCTs with 10 505 patients were included. Oral SIM significantly increased the rate of total Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score ≥6 (risk ratio [RR]  1.13, P < 0.0001), acceptability (RR  1.15, P = 0.01) and the rate of no or minimal foam and bubbles (RR  1.28, P < 0.00001) and decreased abdominal distension (RR  0.64, P < 0.0001). However, it had no significant impact on overall ADR, overall PDR, CIR, CIT or WT. The rate of total BBPS score ≥6 remained significantly higher in the SIM group when a single-dose laxative regimen or a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg was employed; and ADR, PDR and CIR were significantly increased in the SIM group among colonoscopy clinicians who achieved an ADR <31%, PDR <45% and CIR <96%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral SIM can improve bowel preparation quality, especially in patients receiving a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg or a single-dose laxative regimen. SIM may be preferred by junior colonoscopy physicians/trainees with a lower ADR/PDR or CIR.

Video Capsule Endoscopy and Device-Assisted Enteroscopy

Mark Hanscom Courtney Stead Harris Feldman Neil B. Marya David Cave.

Scoring system assessing mucosal visibility of upper gastrointestinal tract: The POLPREP scale

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The proper visibility of mucosa during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is crucial for the detection of early upper gastrointestinal tract lesions. In contrast to colonoscopy, no validated scoring system for the assessment of upper gastrointestinal mucosal cleanliness has been developed so far. The aim of the study was to create and validate standardized grading system (POLPREP) to assess the mucosal cleanliness during EGD.

METHODS

To assess the visibility of mucosa during EGD, 4-point scale was developed (0-3). Twelve operators assessed 18 images of esophagus, stomach, and duodenum twice (in 2 weeks interval). In validation round, the images and endoscopy reports of 443 EGDs performed in six centers were assessed.

RESULTS

The inter-observer accordance of POLPREP was 0.8 (intra-class correlation coefficient; 0.79 consultants, 0.85 trainees). The intra-observer repeatability was 0.64 (Fleiss kappa value; 0.64 consultants, 0.64 trainees). The lesions detection rate was significantly higher in clean (scores 2 and 3; 19.7%) than in "unclean" segments (score 1; 7.7%, P = 0.049). Score 3 was associated with over three-fold higher lesion detection than score 1 (odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence interval 1.1-9; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed POLPREP scale allows for unified assessment of upper gastrointestinal tract mucosal cleanliness. The higher cleanliness scores are related with greater upper gastrointestinal pathologies detection.

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.

Small-Bowel Capsule Endoscopy-Optimizing Capsule Endoscopy in Clinical Practice

The small bowel is the longest organ within the gastrointestinal tract. The emergence of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) over the last 20 years has revolutionized the investigation and diagnosis of small bowel pathology. Its utility as a non-invasive and well-tolerated procedure, which can be performed in an outpatient setting, has made it a valuable diagnostic tool. The indications for SBCE include obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, small bowel Crohn's disease, and, less frequently for screening in polyposis syndromes, celiac disease, or other small bowel pathology. Currently, there are several small bowel capsules on the market from different manufacturers; however, they share many technological features. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) only recently developed a set of key quality indicators to guide quality standards in this area. Many of the technical aspects of capsule endoscopy still feature a degree of uncertainty in terms of optimal performance. Incomplete studies due to slow transit through the bowel, poor imaging secondary to poor preparation, and the risk of capsule retention remain frustrations in its clinical utility. Capsule review is a time-consuming process; however, artificial intelligence and machine learning offer opportunities to improve this. This narrative review examines our current standing in a number of these aspects and the potential to further the application of SBCE in order to maximize its diagnostic utility.

Capsule Endoscopy: Pitfalls and Approaches to Overcome

Capsule endoscopy of the gastrointestinal tract is an innovative technology that serves to replace conventional endoscopy. Wireless capsule endoscopy, which is mainly used for small bowel examination, has recently been used to examine the entire gastrointestinal tract. This method is promising for its usefulness and development potential and enhances convenience by reducing the side effects and discomfort that may occur during conventional endoscopy. However, capsule endoscopy has fundamental limitations, including passive movement via bowel peristalsis and space restriction. This article reviews the current scientific aspects of capsule endoscopy and discusses the pitfalls and approaches to overcome its limitations. This review includes the latest research results on the role and potential of capsule endoscopy as a non-invasive diagnostic and therapeutic device.

Lavage, Simethicone, and Prokinetics-What to Swallow with a Video Capsule

The development of new capsules now allows endoscopic diagnosis in all segments of the gastrointestinal tract and comes with new needs for differentiated preparation regimens. Although the literature is steadily increasing, the results of the conducted trials on preparation are sometimes conflicting. The ingestion of simethicone before gastric and small bowel capsule endoscopy for prevention of air bubbles is established. The value of a lavage before small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is recommended, although not supported by all studies. Ingestion in the morning before the procedure seems useful for the improvement of mucosa visualization. Lavage after swallowing of the capsule seems to improve image quality, and in some studies also diagnostic yield. Prokinetics has been used with first generation capsules to shorten gastric transit time and increase the rate of complete small bowel visualization. With the massively prolonged battery capacity of the new generation small bowel capsules, prokinetics are only necessary in significantly delayed gastric emptying as documented by a real-time viewer. Lavage is crucial for an effective colon capsule or pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy. Mainly high or low volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) is used. Apart from achieving optimal cleanliness, propulsion of the capsule by ingested boosts is required to obtain a complete passage through the colon within the battery lifetime. Boosts with low volume sodium picosulfate (NaP) or diatrizoate (gastrografin) seem most effective, but potentially have more side effects than PEG. Future research is needed for more patient friendly but effective preparations, especially for colon capsule and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy.

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.

The Efficacy of Simethicone With Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Simethicone (SIM) is a commonly used antifoaming agent in the clinic. However, it has not been clarified whether SIM can improve the quality of intestinal preparation and the detection rates of adenomas (ADR) and polyps (PDR). This systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to mainly evaluate the effect of SIM in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic and a manual search of the literature for studies was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science in all published data before February 1, 2020. The primary outcomes were the quality of bowel preparation and the ADR and PDR. All the data were calculated using a pooled estimate of risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals, and a random-effect model was used for the calculation.

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized controlled trials with 7187 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) with SIM improved colon cleansing (P<0.00001), PDR (P=0.006) and the detection rate of lesions in the right colon (P<0.00001) when compared with PEG alone. There was no difference in the ADR (P=0.68), withdrawal time (P=0.06), cecal intubation rate (P=0.98), and cecal intubation time (P=0.65) between 2 groups. The rate of abdominal bloating rate was higher in the PEG group, but there was no significant difference in vomiting (P=0.65), and abdominal pain (P=0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

SIM improves the quality of bowel cleanliness and PDR but not ADR. Besides, SIM improves the detection rate of lesions in the right colon and decreased abdominal bloating, but do not affect vomiting and abdominal pain or cramping.

[Optimal Bowel Preparation for Capsule Endoscopy and Device-assisted Enteroscopy]

For improved examination of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE), bowel preparation is an essential issue. Multiple factors like air bubbles, food material in the small bowel, and gastric and small bowel transit time affect the small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ), diagnostic yield (DY) and cecal completion rate (CR). Bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution enhances SBVQ and DY, but it has no effect on CR. Bowel preparation with PEG solution 2 L is similar to PEG 4 L in SBVQ, DY, and CR. Bowel preparation with fasting or PEG solution combined with anti-foaming agents like simethicone enhance SBVQ, but it has no effect on CR. Bowel preparation with prokinetics is not commonly recommended. Optimal timing for purgative bowel preparation has yet to be established. However, the studies regarding bowel preparation for DAE are not sufficient. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends 8-12 hours fasting from solid food and 4-6 hours fasting from liquids prior to the antegrade DAE. For retrograde DAE, colonoscopy preparation regimen is recommended. This article reviews the literature and ESGE, 2013 Korean published guidelines regarding bowel preparation for VCE and DAE, following suggestion for optimal bowel preparation for VCE and balloon enteroscopy.

Use of capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease in clinical practice in Spain. Results from a national survey

INTRODUCTION

Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is a non-invasive diagnostic technique whose use in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has spread. A panenteric capsule, PillCam Crohn's (PCC), has recently been developed. We lack information on the availability and use of the CEID and PCC in our environment.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic and anonymous survey among the members of the Grupo Español de Trabajo en Enfermedad de Crohn y Colitis Ulcerosa (GETECCU) [Spanish Working Group on Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis] and the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG) [Spanish Association of Gastroenterology], consisting of 37 multiple-choice questions.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty members participated, the majority dedicated to IBD (69.3%). 72.8% worked at centres with an IBD unit. 79% had SBCE available at their hospital, 14% referred patients to another centre; 22% had a PCC available, 9% referred patients to another centre. 79.3% of respondents with available SBCE used it in a small percentage of patients with IBD and 15.6% in the majority. The most frequent scenarios were suspicion of Crohn's disease (76.3%), assessment of inflammatory activity (54.7%) and assessment of the extent of the disease (54.7%). More than half (59.7%) preferentially used the Patency capsule to assess intestinal patency. Almost all respondents (99.3%) considered that training resources should be implemented in this technique.

CONCLUSIONS

SBCE is widely available in Spanish hospitals for the management of IBD, although its use is still limited. There is an opportunity to increase training in this technique, and consequently its use.

A randomized controlled trial of high volume simethicone to improve visualization during capsule endoscopy

Background

The optimal dose of simethicone before capsule endoscopy is unknown. Prior studies have reported inconsistent cleansing, with some showing improved visualization only in the proximal small intestine. We hypothesized a higher volume of simethicone may improve cleansing and diagnostic yield, especially in the distal small bowel.

Methods

A phase III randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing high volume (1125 mg simethicone in 750 ml water) versus standard volume (300 mg simethicone in 200 ml water) solutions, both at 1.5 mg/ml. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a KOrea-CanaDA (KODA) score >2.25, overall and stratified by the proximal and distal half of the small bowel. Secondary outcomes included mean KODA score, diagnostic yield, completion rate, and adverse events. All analyses were intention-to-treat.

Results

A total of 167 patients were randomized (mean (SD) age 58.7 (15.7), 54% female) and the most common indication was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (71.7%). Adequate cleansing was achieved in 39 (50%) patients in the high volume group and in 39 (48%) patients in the standard volume group (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76–1.43, p = 0.82), with no differences observed in the proximal half (71% vs 64%, p = 0.40) or the distal half -of the small bowel (36% vs. 37%, p = 0.88). There was no differences in the mean (SD) KODA score (2.20 (0.41) vs. 2.18 (0.44), p = 0.73), diagnostic yields (53% vs. 56%, p = 0.71), or completion rates (both 95%). One adverse event, nausea, occurred in the control group.

Conclusion

High volume simethicone does not improve visualization during capsule endoscopy.

Clinical trial registration

Clinical trial:NCT02334631.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Very-low Volume Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Narrative Review

An adequate bowel preparation is essential for a successful colonoscopy, in particular, in the setting of colorectal cancer screening. However, up to one-quarter of colonoscopies are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which may result in reduced polyp and adenoma detection rates, prolonged procedural time, and an increased likelihood of repeat the procedure. The ideal intestinal preparation should provide an optimal observation of the mucosa (at least &gt; 90% of the visible surface), with adequate acceptability and safety for the patient. With this premise, a very low-volume 1 L PEG-ASC solution (Plenvu; Norgine, Harefield, United Kingdom) has been recently introduced to improve patients' experience in colonoscopy by reducing the total intake of liquids to be consumed. This could represent a valid option for bowel cleansing, considering CRC screening and surveillance programs, improving both the quality of the examination and the patients' compliance. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that a "one size fits all" preparation strategy is not feasible and that a bowel preparation regime must always be selected and tailored by the clinician for each patient, evaluating the best options on a case by case basis. This narrative review aims to sum up the evidence regarding new bowel preparation regimens in order to help clinicians to tailor the best choice for patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Efficacy of the Combination of Pinaverium Bromide 100 mg Plus Simethicone 300 mg in Abdominal Pain and Bloating in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial

GOALS

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PB+S (pinaverium bromide 100 mg plus simethicone 300 mg) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

BACKGROUND

IBS is a multifactorial disorder; thus, combination therapy with different mechanisms of action is expected to be useful. PB+S has shown effectiveness in an open-label clinical study in IBS. However, there are no placebo-controlled trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IBS-Rome III patients with abdominal pain/discomfort for at least 2 days within the week prior to baseline assessment were included in this 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of PB+S versus placebo, bid. The primary endpoint was overall symptom improvement, evaluated weekly by the patient (Likert Scale). Secondary endpoints included the weekly improvement in the severity of abdominal pain and bloating assessed both by patients (10-cm Visual Analogue Scale) and investigators (Likert Scale); frequency of Bristol Scale stool types (consistency) evaluated by patients and the IBS Quality of Life scores.

RESULTS

A total of 285 patients (female: 83%; 36.5±8.9 y old) received at least 1 dose of PB+S (n=140) or placebo (n=145). No difference was observed in overall symptom improvement between the groups (P=0.13). However, PB+S was superior in abdominal pain (effect size: 31%, P=0.038) and bloating (33%, P=0.019). Patients with IBS-C and IBS-M showed the best improvement in the frequency of stool types with PB+S. No differences were observed in IBS Quality of Life scores and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

PB+S was superior to placebo in improving abdominal pain and bloating in patients with active IBS. The effect on the frequency of stool consistency was particularly significant in IBS-C and IBS-M.

Effect of pre-endoscopy intake of simethicone solution on endoscopic mucosal visibility: A single blinded, placebo control, randomized trial

Objective:

To determine effect of pre-endoscopy intake of simethicone solution on endoscopic mucosal visibility.

Methodology:

A randomized, single blinded placebo control trial was done in patients undergoing oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy for any indication at DOTs Endoscopy Suite, CHK during the period of April to June 2019. Informed consent was taken. Patients were randomly allocated in two groups. Group-A received placebo while Group-B received Simethicone. Evaluation of mucosal visibility was assessed at 4 sites (oesophagus, fundus, antrum & duodenum) by previously validated scoring. Mean of visibility scores were compared in two groups.

Results:

Two hundred and forty-eight patients were inducted and randomly allocate to two groups of 124 each. Mean of total sum of scores in Group-A was 8.14 ±2.44 and that of Group-B was 5.80 ±1.75 (p<0.001). Adequate visibility in Group-A was seen in 41.1% and that in Group-B was 78.2% (p<0.001).

Conclusion:

Use of Simethicone significantly improves mucosal visibility during OGD.

A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing simethicone, N-acetylcysteine, sodium bicarbonate and peppermint for visualization in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

Early cancer detection is crucial in improving the patients' quality of life and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (EGD) plays a key role in this detection. Many clearing mechanisms may be applied to create good endoscopic visualizations for the upper gastrointestinal tract using mucolytic agents, antifoaming agents, proteolytic enzymes and neutralizers. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of simethicone, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), sodium bicarbonate and peppermint as pre-medications for visualization of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

METHODS

This study was a single center prospective randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups. Group A: water; Group B: water with simethicone; Group C: water with simethicone plus NAC 600 mg; Group D: water with simethicone, NAC, sodium bicarbonate and peppermint.

RESULTS

A total of 128 patients were enrolled and evaluated in this study. Total visibility score (TVS) of Groups A, B, C, and D were 13.4 ± 1.86, 10.5 ± 1.45, 7.15 ± 0.98 and 6.4 ± 1.43, respectively. Group D showed lower TVS than other groups. The procedural durations of Groups C and D were significantly shorter than Group A. The volume of solution for mucosal cleansing of Groups C and D was significantly lower than Groups A and B.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of simethicone plus NAC is safe, improves endoscopic visualization and requires a minimal amount of mucosal cleansing solution. The addition of sodium bicarbonate and peppermint further improved visualization for the upper and lower gastric body. Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) with a reference number; TCTR20190501002.

Effect of simethicone on reducing operative difficulty associated with bowel interference during minilaparotomy for modified Pomeroy salpingectomy: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of simethicone on reducing operative difficulty associated with bowel interference during minilaparotomy for postpartum modified Pomeroy partial salpingectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

We enrolled 20-45-year-old women planning the procedure from March 2018 to February 2019. We randomized participants to chew simethicone 160 mg with water 50 mL 2-8 h before surgery or no treatment. The participants were not blinded; however, surgeons, care providers, and outcome assessors were blinded to the study allocation. We measured surgeon-rated operative difficulty using a 10-cm visual analog scale that represented the difficulty perceived to be resulting from bowel interference. Secondary outcomes included operative time and intraoperative and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

We enrolled 60 women in each group; baseline characteristics and procedural profiles were comparable. Women in the intervention group used simethicone a median of 157 min (interquartile range 127-192) before the procedure. Surgeons rated the procedure difficulty score as 4.8 in the simethicone group and 4.5 in the control group (p = 0.57). Operative time in the two groups were 26 and 24 min, respectively (p = 0.14). We found no difference in intraoperative adverse events including blood loss and mesosalpinx tear, postoperative morbidities, hospital stay, and patient-rated satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSION

Preprocedural simethicone has no demonstrable benefit in reducing operative difficulty caused by bowel interference during minilaparotomy for postpartum tubal sterilization.

IMPLICATIONS

Preprocedural simethicone as given in this study did not result in reduced bowel interference and improved procedure difficulty. Further research examining simethicone in this setting would not be worthwhile as clinically meaningful benefit is unlikely.

Augmentation with pre-emptive macrogol-based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial

Background and Aim

The addition of a laxative prior to a standard bowel preparation (BP) has shown variable results in efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the BP. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of a macrogol-augmented BP (M-BP) with standard BP for routine colonoscopy in unselected patients.

Methods

Adults undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to either M-BP (one sachet of macrogol-based osmotic laxative (MBOL) twice daily for eight doses prior to standard preparation) or BP (split-dose of polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate). Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Ottawa BP scale. Risk factors for poor BP, patient satisfaction, and tolerance were recorded.

Results

This randomized trial was stopped due to futility after 14 months; at that point, 92 subjects were randomized to the study arm and 102 to the control arm. M-BP had a success rate of 71.7% (95% CI: 58.5-82.7%), while the BP had a success rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 54.9-78.8%), with a Pearson χ ² test P-value of 0.639, which exceeded the cut-off for futility (0.313). In subgroup analyses, there were statistically significant decreases in the rates of successful BP in patients taking regular opioids and regular laxatives. Both preparations were well tolerated, with no difference between groups (BP - 5.3% and M-BP - 6.6% P = 0.66).

Conclusion

The addition of MBOL prior to a standard BP in unselected subjects does not significantly improve bowel cleanliness at routine colonoscopy. The role of this laxative in patients at high risk of poor preparation warrants further investigation.

Optimal Timing of Simethicone Addition for Bowel Preparation Using Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid

BACKGROUND

Colonic bubbles obscure the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy following bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc). Simethicone is used to enhance visualization during colonoscopy. We aimed to determine the optimal timing of simethicone addition to improve bowel preparation using PEG-Asc.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized study enrolled patients undergoing elective colonoscopy from April 2017 to January 2018. They were randomly assigned to one of the following three groups: PEG-Asc only (control) or simethicone addition in the morning on the day of colonoscopy (PEG-S1) or in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy (PEG-S2). The primary outcome was the quality of colon cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and diminutive (≤ 5 mm) ADR.

RESULTS

In total, 240 patients were randomly allocated to the three groups; six patients were withdrawn. Of the 234 patients evaluated, 78, 79, and 77 were allocated to the control, PEG-S1, and PEG-S2 groups, respectively. The bubble scores of all colonic segments were lowest in the PEG-S2 group. There was no significant difference in ADR or PDR among the three groups. However, the diminutive ADR was significantly higher in the PEG-S2 group compared to the other two groups (control 5.1% vs. PEG-S1 8.9% vs. PEG-S2 20.8%; P = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Addition of simethicone to PEG-Asc at the optimal time prevents the formation of air bubbles and so improves the quality of bowel preparation, especially enhancing diminutive ADR.

Simethicone decreases bloating and improves bowel preparation effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Simethicone is an adjunct frequently used during bowel preparation before colonoscopy and currently there is no consensus on whether it should be recommended in standard bowel preparation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect simethicone has on bowel cleanliness, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and tolerability.

METHODS

We searched the literature for studies that compared colon cleansing of patients that received standard bowel preparation alone and in combination with simethicone prior to colonoscopy. The primary outcomes were colon cleanliness, ADR, and tolerability.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized controlled trials with 5630 patients were included in meta-analysis. Overall, polyethylene glycol (PEG) with simethicone improves colon cleansing compared with PEG alone (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, CI 1.11 to 1.97, P = 0.008). This improvement was seen for single dosing (OR 1.83, CI 1.20 to 2.79, P = 0.005) but not for split dosing (OR 1.32, CI 0.72 to 2.43, P = 0.38). Overall, simethicone had no effect on ADR (OR 1.22, CI 0.81 to 1.83, P = 0.33), but in patients receiving single dosing, simethicone significantly increased ADR (OR 1.96, CI 1.22 to 3.16, P = 0.005). The rates of nausea (OR 0.96, CI 0.75 to 1.24, P = 0.75), vomiting (OR 1.00, CI 0.69 to 1.44, P = 0.99), and abdominal pain (OR 0.69, CI 0.40 to 1.18, P = 0.17) were not significantly different between PEG and PEG + simethicone cohorts. For abdominal bloating, the PEG cohort had greater odds of experiencing bloating than the PEG + simethicone cohort (OR 2.33, CI 1.70 to 3.20, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Simethicone improves colon cleanliness and ADR; however, this improvement is not seen in patients receiving split-dose PEG. Furthermore, simethicone decreases abdominal bloating but has no effect on nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Simethicone may be a useful bowel preparation adjunct in patients unable to receive split-dose PEG.

Small bowel capsule endoscopy and treat-to-target in Crohn's disease: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Crohn's disease (CD) can affect the entire gastrointestinal tract. Proximal small bowel (SB) lesions are associated with a significant risk of stricturing disease and multiple abdominal surgeries. The assessment of SB in patients with CD is therefore necessary because it may have a significant impact on prognosis with potential therapeutic implications. Because of the weak correlation that exists between symptoms and endoscopic disease activity, the "treat-to-target" paradigm has been developed, and the associated treatment goal is to achieve and maintain deep remission, encompassing both clinical and endoscopic remission. Small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) allows to visualize the mucosal surface of the entire SB. At that time, there is no recommendation regarding the use of SBCE during follow-up.

AIM

To investigate the impact of SBCE in a treat-to-target strategy in patients with CD.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Cochrane library using the following search terms: "capsule endoscopy", in combination with "Crohn's disease" and "treat-to-target" or synonyms. Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts identified by the search strategy after duplicates were removed. Following the initial screening of abstracts, all articles containing information about SBCE in the context of treat-to-target strategy in patients with CD were included. Full-text articles were retrieved, reference lists were screened manually to identify additional studies.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles were included in this review. Two indexes are currently used to quantify disease activity using SBCE, and there is good correlation between them. SBCE was shown to be useful for disease reclassification in patients who are suspected of having or who are diagnosed with CD, with a significant incremental diagnostic yield compared to other diagnostic modalities. Nine studies also demonstrated that the mucosal healing can be evaluated by SBCE to monitor the effect of medical treatment in patients with CD. This review also demonstrated that SBCE can detect post-operative recurrence to a similar extent as ileocolonoscopy, and proximal SB lesions that are beyond the reach of the colonoscope in over half of the patients.

CONCLUSION

SBCE could be incorporated in the treat-to-target algorithm for patients with CD. Randomized controlled trials are required to confirm its usefulness and reliability in this indication.

Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures both for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, for which performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.

The benefit of adding oral simethicone in bowel preparation regimen for the detection of colon adenoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Simethicone is an anti-foaming agent commonly used during colonoscopy. Although several randomized trials have shown that oral simethicone in the bowel preparation regimen may improve bowel cleanness, whether it improves adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate remains undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine if oral simethicone in bowel preparation regimen before colonoscopy improves the ADR.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed, SDOL, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest databases through December 2017. Randomized controlled trials that compared bowel preparation regimens with simethicone versus those without it were included. Effect estimates from each study were extracted and underwent meta-analysis using appropriate models. The primary outcomes were ADR and polyp detection rate, and secondary outcomes included bowel preparation, bubble score, and withdrawal time.

RESULTS

Twelve published randomized controlled studies with 6003 participants were included for meta-analysis. There was no difference in the overall ADR (pooled risk ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 0.91-1.24) and right-side ADR (risk ratio = 1.50, 95% confidence interval = 0.82-2.75) between the groups with or without simethicone. However, the addition of simethicone improved adenoma detected per patient (2.20 ± 1.36 vs 1.63 ± 0.89) according to one of the included studies. Meta-regression revealed that the baseline ADR < 25% of the included studies was associated with significant benefit of oral simethicone; the number needed to treat was 15.

CONCLUSIONS

The adjunction of oral simethicone significantly improved bowel preparation quality and might benefit adenoma detection in specific settings with low baseline ADR.

Higher dose of simethicone decreases colonic bubbles and increases prep tolerance and quality of bowel prep: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Antifoaming agents, such as simethicone, may facilitate mucosal inspection during colonoscopy. However, conflicting results have been reported with regard to the impact of simethicone on quality of bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis of trials that have compared simethicone vs placebo during colonoscopy.

METHODS

A reproducible literature search of multiple medical databases yielded eleven studies (n = 2605) for inclusion. Studies were compared for quality of bowel preparation, bubbles quality, ADR, and tolerability. Two reviewers independently scored the identified studies for methodology and abstracted pertinent data. Pooling was conducted by both fixed-effects and random-effects models. Relative risk (RR) estimates with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed by I-squared index (I²) statistics.

RESULTS

Patients’ demographic characteristics were comparable in all studies. Of the 2605 patients, 1300 were in the simethicone group, whereas 1305 were in the placebo group. Inadequate bowel preparation was much lower in the simethicone group than in the placebo group [13% vs 24.6%; RR = 0.51 (0.31-0.82); P < 0.0001]. The placebo group was more likely to have significant colonic bubbles than was the simethicone group [35% vs 8%; RR = 1.49 (1.25-1.76); P = 0.0001]. Use of simethicone resulted in a slight, statistically significant increase in ADR compared with the placebo group [26.6% vs 21.6%, RR = 1.07 (1.01-1.13); P = 0.02]. Higher doses of simethicone (> 478 mg) were more likely to result in significant reduction of inadequate bowel preparation, colonic bubbles, and to improve ADR.

CONCLUSION

Adding simethicone improved the quality of bowel preparation, visualization, tolerability, and, eventually, ADR.

Quality measures improving endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health-care problem all over the world and CRC screening is effective in reducing mortality and increasing the 5-year survival. Colonoscopy has a central role in CRC screening. It can be performed as a primary test, as a recall policy after a positive result of another screening test, and for surveillance. Since effectiveness of endoscopic screening depends on adequate detection and removal of colonic polyps, consistent quality measures, which are useful in enhancing the diagnostic yield of examination, are essential. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to analyze current evidence from literature supporting quality measures able to refine endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer. Expert commentary: Quality measures namely a) time slot allotted to colonoscopy, b) assessment of indication, c) bowel preparation, d) Cecal intubation, e) withdrawal time, f) adenoma detection rate, g) proper management of lesions (polypectomy technique, polyps retrieval rate and tattooing of resection sites), and h) adequate follow-up intervals play a key role in identifying malignant and at-risk lesions and improving the outcome of screening. Adherence to these quality measures is critical to maximize the effectiveness of CRC screening, as well as, a proper technique of colonoscopy and a quality report of the procedure. Among all recommended measures, adenoma detection rate is the most important and must be kept above the recommended quality threshold by all physicians practicing in the setting of screening.

Simethicone is retained in endoscopes despite reprocessing: impact of its use on working channel fluid retention and adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence values (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies from our group and others demonstrate residual fluid in 42% to 95% of endoscope working channels despite high-level disinfection and drying. Additionally, persistent simethicone has been reported in endoscope channels despite reprocessing.

METHODS

Endoscopy was performed by using water or varied simethicone concentrations (0.5%, 1%, 3%) for flushing. After high-level disinfection/drying, we inspected endoscope working channels for retained fluid by using the SteriCam borescope. Working channel rinsates were evaluated for adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was performed on fluid droplets gathered from a colonoscope in which low-concentration simethicone was used.

RESULTS

Use of medium/high concentrations of simethicone resulted in a higher mean number of fluid droplets (13.5/17.3 droplets, respectively) and ATP bioluminescence values (20.6/23 relative light units [RLUs], respectively) compared with that of procedures using only water (6.3 droplets/10.9 RLUs; P < .001). Two automated endoscope reprocessing cycles resulted in return of a fluid droplet and ATP bioluminescence values to ranges similar to that of procedures that used only water (P = .56). Low-concentration simethicone did not increase the mean residual fluid or ATP bioluminescence values compared with procedures that used only water (5.8 droplets/15.6 RLUs). Fourier transform infrared analysis revealed simethicone in the endoscope working channel after use of low-concentration simethicone.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of medium/high concentrations of simethicone is associated with retention of increased fluid droplets and higher ATP bioluminescence values in endoscope working channels, compared with endoscopes in which water or low concentration simethicone was used. However, simethicone is detectable in endoscopes despite reprocessing, even when it is utilized in low concentrations. Our data suggest that when simethicone is used, it should be used in the lowest concentration possible. Facilities may consider 2 automated endoscope reprocessor cycles for reprocessing of endoscopes when simethicone has been used.

The effect of using simethicone with or without N-acetylcysteine before gastroscopy: A meta-analysis and systemic review

BACKGROUND/AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of simethicone with or without N-acetylcysteine (NAC) as premedications before gastroscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane library and Web of Science database for randomized clinical controlled trials regarding simethicone ± NAC as oral drinking agents before gastroscopy. Statistical software RevMan5.3 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Ten randomized clinical trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were further pooled into a meta-analysis, which included 5,750 patients. The rate of positive findings in simethicone plus NAC group was higher than that in water group (risk ratio [RR] =1.31, 95%CI: 1.12-1.53, P = 0.0006) with high level of evidence. There was no significant difference on the rate of positive findings when comparing simethicone with simethicone plus NAC (RR = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.90-1.16, P = 0.71) and with water (RR = 1.13, 95%CI: 0.82-1.55, P = 0.46), respectively. Simethicone plus NAC showed better total mucosal visibility score than simethicone alone (MD = -0.14 (-0.25, -0.03), P = 0.01) without obvious heterogeneity. Both simethicone plus NAC and simethicone alone offer more benefit than water. The procedure time in simethicone group was shorter than that in water group (MD = -1.23 (-1.51, -0.96), P < 0.00001). Regarding adverse events, there was no significant difference in simethicone and water group (RR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.2-1.0, P = 0.05, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

As premedication of gastroscopy, simethicone plus NAC offers more benefit on positive findings and total mucosal visibility score.

Improving the mucosal visualization at gastroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials reporting the role of Simethicone ± N-acetylcysteine

Background

The objective of this article is to study the role of Simethicone ± N-acetylcysteine in improving the mucosal visualization during oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (OGD).

Methods

The data retrieved from the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the role of Simethicone ± N-acetylcysteine during OGD was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The summated outcome of continuous variables was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and dichotomous data was presented in odds ratio (OR).

Results

Three RCTs on 654 patients reported OGD with and without pre-procedure oral administration of Simethicone ± N-acetylcysteine evaluating visibility as good or excellent in number during the procedure. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the use of Simethicone ± N-acetylcysteine was associated with improved (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.28, 0.68; z=3.65; P=0.0003) mucosal visibility. Four RCTs on 364 patients reported OGD with and without pre-procedure oral administration of Simethicone ± N-acetylcysteine evaluating visibility score in study group. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the use of Simethicone ± N-acetylcysteine was associated with improved (SMD, -1.66; 95% CI, -1.93, -1.40; z=12.25; P=0.00001) mucosal visibility score compared to no-Simethicone group.

Conclusions

The findings of current study on 1,099 patients successfully demonstrate that the pre-procedure oral administration of Simethicone ± N-acetylcysteine improves mucosal visualization and mucosal visualization score during OGD.

Development and validation of an automated algorithm to evaluate the abundance of bubbles in small bowel capsule endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Bubbles can impair visualization of the small bowel (SB) mucosa during capsule endoscopy (CE). We aimed to develop and validate a computed algorithm that would allow evaluation of the abundance of bubbles in SB-CE still frames.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two sets of 200 SB-CE normal still frames were created. Two experienced SB-CE readers analyzed both sets of images twice, in a random order. Each still frame was categorized as presenting with < 10 % or ≥ 10 % of bubbles. Reproducibility (κ), sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), receiver operating characteristic curve, and calculation time were measured for different algorithms (Grey-level of co-occurrence matrix [GLCM], fractal dimension, Hough transform, and speeded-up robust features [SURF]) using the experts' analysis as reference. Algorithms with highest reproducibility, Se and Sp were then selected for a validation step on the second set of frames. Criteria for validation were κ = 1, Se ≥ 90 %, Sp ≥ 85 %, and a calculation time < 1 second.

RESULTS

Both SURF and GLCM algorithms had high operating points (Se and Sp over 90 %) and a perfect reproducibility (κ = 1). The validation step showed the GLCM detector strategy had the best diagnostic performances, with a Se of 95.79 %, a Sp of 95.19 %, and a calculation time of 0.037 seconds per frame.

CONCLUSION

A computed algorithm based on a GLCM detector strategy had high diagnostic performance allowing assessment of the abundance of bubbles in SB-CE still frames. This algorithm could be of interest for clinical use (quality reporting) and for research purposes (objective comparison tool of different preparations).

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Position Statement on the Impact of Simethicone on Endoscope Reprocessing

A recent study by Ofstead et al. published in the American Journal of Infection Control described the presence of residual simethicone and non-pathogenic bacterial colonization in endoscopes despite adherence to reprocessing procedures(1). These findings received significant media attention, in part because they were released following a warning issued by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centre for Disease Control regarding the potential transmission of multi-drug resistant bacteria associated with the use of duodenoscopes(2, 3). In light of the findings described by Ofstead et al., the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) would like to update its members on what is currently known.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: is bowel preparation still necessary in small bowel capsule endoscopy?

INTRODUCTION

Optimal bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy(SBCE) is controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of laxatives in SBCE.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies investigating the use of laxatives in SBCE. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield(DY) for SB findings; secondary outcomes SB visualization quality(SBVQ) and completion rate(CR). Pooled odds ratios(ORs) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs) and number needed to treat(NNT) were calculated.

RESULTS

Forty studies (4380 patients with laxatives, 2185 without) were included. Laxative use did not improve DY of SB findings overall (OR 1.11 (95%CI 0.85-1.44)) or for significant SB findings (OR 1.10 (95%CI 0.76-1.60)). However, SBVQ improved with the use of laxatives (OR 1.60 (95%CI 1.08-2.06)), NNT 14. The OR for completed SBCE was 1.30 (95%CI 0.95-1.78). Patients given polyethylene glycol(PEG) had lower DY than sodium phosphate(NaP). SBVQ improved more with NaP (NNT 7) than PEG (NNT 53).

CONCLUSIONS

Laxatives do not significantly improve DY or CR in SBCE, but do improve SBQV. The use of laxatives may be beneficial in patients likely to have subtle findings. There are significant differences in methodology/definitions between studies, hence the need for standardized visualization scoring and recording of SBCE findings.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of colon cleansing preparations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

AIM

To performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine any possible differences in terms of effectiveness, safety and tolerability between existing colon-cleansing products in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed (January 1980-September 2016) using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge for randomized trials assessing preparations with or without adjuvants, given in split and non-split dosing, and in high (> 3 L) or low-volume (2 L or less) regimens. Bowel cleansing quality was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included patient willingness-to-repeat the procedure and side effects/complications.

RESULTS

Out of 439 citations, 4 trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria (n = 449 patients). One trial assessed the impact of adding simethicone to polyethylene glycol (PEG) 4 L with no effect on bowel cleansing quality, but a better tolerance. Another trial compared senna to castor oil, again without any differences in term of bowel cleansing. Two trials compared the efficacy of PEG high-volume vs PEG low-volume associated to an adjuvant in split-dose regimens: PEG low-dose efficacy was not different to PEG high-dose; OR = 0.84 (0.37-1.92). A higher proportion of patients were willing to repeat low-volume preparations vs high-volume; OR = 5.11 (1.31-20.0).

CONCLUSION

In inflammatory bowel disease population, PEG low-volume regimen seems not inferior to PEG high-volume to clean the colon, and yields improved willingness-to-repeat. Further additional research is urgently required to compare contemporary products in this population.