Improving quality of colonoscopy by adding simethicone to sodium phosphate bowel preparation

Simethicone use in drug-induced sleep endoscopy improves visibility

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of simethicone, a defoaming agent, on improving visibility during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

METHODS

The study was a retrospective case-series study on patients with OSA who failed positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment. Patient parameters were recorded including age, BMI, neck and abdominal circumference, and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). Comparisons were made between DISE procedures performed with and without the administration of simethicone. Visibility during DISE was independently graded by two surgeons, and inter-rater reliability was assessed.

RESULTS

Simethicone significantly improved DISE visibility (p = 0.03). "Best visibility" was achieved in 55% of cases with simethicone compared to 27% without simethicone (p = 0.02). Sub-analysis showed that only simethicone administration had a significant effect on visibility (p = 0.02). Inter-rater reliability between the grading surgeons was strong (Cohen-Kappa score 0.7, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that simethicone enhances DISE visibility for OSA surgical planning. Further research should explore optimizing simethicone administration timing and the potential clinical implications for surgical outcomes and patient care.

Comparison of a novel mini-oral sulfate tablet and the conventional oral sulfate tablet in bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter, non-inferior, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of conventional oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) has gained popularity; nonetheless, they may be not only inconvenient to swallow but also difficult to dissolve. A novel mini-OST has recently been developed to enhance compliance with conventional OST use. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety between mini-OST and conventional OST.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter, and non-inferior phase 3 trial conducted between September 2022 and December 2022. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability were compared between mini-OST and conventional OST.

RESULTS

Exactly 83 patients were evaluated based on a full analysis set (FAS), whereas 82 patients were evaluated as a per-protocol set (PPS). With respect to the efficacy of preparation, successful and high-quality preparation was excellent in the mini-OST and conventional OST groups on both FAS and PPS analyses, without significant differences between the two groups. On the FAS analysis, the satisfaction and tolerability scores were high in both groups, without significant differences. The first bowel movement after taking the investigational product occurred 30 min earlier in the mini-OST group than in the OST group. Mild, moderate, and severe adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the two groups; however, any AEs were more common in the mini-OST group than in the conventional OST group overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional OST, the novel mini-OST preparation showed similar efficacy, tolerability, and safety, including mild eight solicited AEs and moderate-to-severe AEs. Clinical trial registration NCT05670470.

Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection

A review of the development of the key performance metrics of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), learning from the experience of the establishment of widespread colonoscopy quality measurements. Potential future performance markers for both colonoscopy and EMR are also evaluated to ensure continued high quality performance is maintained with a focus service framework and predictors of patient outcome.

When should patients take simethicone orally before colonoscopy for avoiding bubbles: A single-blind, randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Many studies have reported the use of simethicone before colonoscopy removes bubbles. However, guidelines weakly recommend simethicone administration before colonoscopy. The present study aimed to confirm the advantages of taking simethicone and determine the appropriate time for taking simethicone.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients to the following 5 groups according to the administration time: 4 groups were divided based on 2 parameters (the day before and on the day of colonoscopy and before and after bowel cleansing) and the remaining group was the control group. We compared bubble score (BS), number of simethicone solution irrigations when visually obscured, satisfaction score of the endoscopist, insertion time.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients were included in the study. There was a difference in BS according to the timing of simethicone administration (P < .001). The group taking simethicone on the day of the test had a better BS than the group taking simethicone the day before (P < .001). The group taking simethicone on the previous day had a better BS than the control group (P = .001). In the group of taking simethicone on the examination day, the number of irrigations was lower, and satisfaction with the inspector was higher than group of taking simethicone on previous day and control group (both P < .001). The insertion time showed a non-significantly decreasing trend (P = .417).

CONCLUSION

Administering simethicone reduced bubbles and facilitated effective colonoscopy, especially when administrating it on the day of examination. It needs to be administered on the day of the examination regardless of bowel preparation.

Cleaning effect and tolerance of 16 bowel preparation regimens on adult patients before colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Before a colonoscopy, an adequate bowel preparation (BP) is required. Currently, more novel regimens with different effects have been proposed and used successively. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the cleaning effects and patients' tolerability of several BP regimens.

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including sixteen kinds of BP regimens. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The outcomes of this study were bowel cleansing effect and tolerance.

RESULTS

We included a total of 40 articles with 13,064 patients. For the primary outcomes, polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid (Asc) + simethicone (Sim) (OR, 14.27, 95%CrI, 2.68-127.87) regimen is ranked first in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PEG + Sim (OR, 2.0, 95%CrI 0.64-6.4) regimen is ranked first in Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), but without significant differences. For the secondary outcomes, PEG + Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SP/MC) (OR, 4.88e + 11, 95%CrI, 39.56-1.82e + 35) regimen is the best in cecal intubation rate(CIR). PEG + Sim (OR,1.5, 95%CrI, 1.0-2.2) regimen is ranked first in adenoma detection rate(ADR). Senna (OR, 3.23, 95%CrI, 1.04-9.97) and SP/MC (OR, 249.91, 95%CrI, 78.49-958.19) regimens are ranked first in abdominal pain and willingness to repeat, respectively. There is no significant difference in cecal intubation time (CIT), polyp detection rate (PDR), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloat.

CONCLUSION

PEG + Asc + Sim regimen is more effective at cleaning the bowel. PEG + SP/MC will be helpful to increase CIR. For ADR, PEG + Sim regimen will be more helpful. In addition, PEG + Asc + Sim is the least likely to cause abdominal bloat, while Senna regimen is more likely to cause abdominal pain. Patients prefer to re-use the SP/MC regimen for bowel preparation.

Efficacy of oral sulfate tablets for bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The adenoma detection rate (ADR), which is closely related to bowel preparation, is the most important factor for colonoscopy quality assessment. New oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) have been developed to improve bowel preparation compliance. This study evaluated the efficacy of OSTs in terms of the ADR and bowel preparation status.

METHODS

Medical records of subjects under the age of 65 who underwent colonoscopy from March 2019 to February 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-A) was used as a bowel preparation for the first half of the study period, and OSTs were used for the second half. In total, 16 971 subjects were included in the study: 9199 (54.2%) used PEG-A, and 7772 (45.8%) used OSTs. Bowel cleansing quality was assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

RESULTS

The average age was 50 years. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was higher in the OST group than in the PEG-A group (97.2% vs 95.0%, P < 0.001). The mean BBPS was also higher in the OST group (8.02 vs 7.75, P < 0.001). The adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the ADR and the sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR) were higher in the OST group than in the PEG-A group (APC 0.56 ± 1.01 vs 0.48 ± 0.91, P < 0.001; ADR 34.5% vs 30.7%, P < 0.001; SSPDR 5.2% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PEG-A, OSTs yielded superior APC, ADRs, SSPDRs, and better bowel cleanliness. Therefore, OSTs are a good alternative for patients who have difficulty taking large-volume bowel preparation formulations.

Efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral sulphate tablet for bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A multicentre randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of novel oral sulphate tablets [OSTs] vs 2 L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbate [PEG/Asc] in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD].

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 110 patients with clinically inactive IBD were enrolled in this single-blind multicentre non-inferiority study. Patients were randomly assigned to the OST or 2 L PEG/Asc group and we applied a split-dose regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint was bowel cleansing success rate defined as Harefield Cleansing Scale Grade A or B. The secondary endpoints were perfect preparation rate, the presence of air bubbles, safety as assessed by laboratory abnormalities and self-reported adverse events, or IBD symptom flare-ups. Tolerability was assessed by a pre-procedural visual analog scale [VAS] interview.

RESULTS

Both groups showed high cleansing success rates [98.1%] and there was no significant difference in perfect preparation rate. The proportion of a bubble score 0 was significantly higher in the OST group [94.5% vs 50.0%, p < 0.001]. There was no significant intergroup difference in vomiting or bloating. Symptom flare-ups occurred in two OST group patients. No clinically significant blood test abnormalities were noted in either group. Ease of ingestion and taste scores were significantly higher in the OST group. More patients in the OST group [94.5%] wanted to take the same preparation agent for their next colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Both OST and 2 L PEG/Asc demonstrated high successful cleansing and safety in patients with inactive IBD. OST achieved higher satisfaction than 2 L PEG/Asc. Our results suggest that the OST split-dose regimen is effective and safe for patients with inactive IBD.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety between oral sulfate tablet and polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy according to age

BACKGROUND

Recently, a novel oral sulfate tablet (OST) has been introduced for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, whether elderly patients can take OST is not yet clear, as OST consists of 28 tablets. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of OST and polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation for colonoscopy according to age.

METHODS

We randomly divided subjects into an OST group and a PEG group and compared Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), bubble score, patient compliance and satisfaction, and safety between the 2 groups according to age (under 65 years of age vs 65 years of age and older).

RESULTS

Among the 179 participants, 61 were 65 years of age and older. The BBPS and bubble score of the OST group were better than that of the PEG group, regardless of age. The satisfaction of the OST group was better than that of the PEG group, regardless of age. The compliance was not different between the 2 groups; however, the OST group under 65 years of age had a higher rate of completing the dose within 2 hours compared with the PEG group under 65 years of age. Adverse events including abdominal distension, abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting were not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of OST for bowel preparation before colonoscopy is as effective and safe as PEG, and these results were consistent in elderly people 65 years of age and older.

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.

Optimal Timing of Simethicone Supplement for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Simethicone (SIM), as an antifoaming agent, has been shown to improve bowel preparation during colonoscopy. However, the optimal timing of SIM addition remained undetermined. We aimed to investigate the optimal timing of SIM addition to polyethylene glycol (PEG) to improve bowel preparation.

METHODS

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to two groups: the SIM evening group (SIM addition to PEG in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy) and the SIM morning group (SIM addition to PEG in the morning of colonoscopy). The primary outcome was Bubble Scale (BS). The secondary outcomes were Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

RESULTS

A total of 419 patients were enrolled in this study. The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. No significant differences were observed in terms of BS (8.76 ± 0.90 vs. 8.65 ± 1.16, P = 0.81), ADR (34.1% vs. 30.8%, P = 0.47), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (8.59 ± 0.94 vs. 8.45 ± 1.00, P = 0.15), and withdrawal time (8.22 ± 2.04 vs. 8.01 ± 2.51, P = 0.094) between the two groups. Moreover, safety and compliance were similar in both groups. However, the SIM evening group was associated with shorter cecal intubation time (3.80 ± 1.81 vs. 4.42 ± 2.03, P < 0.001), higher BS (2.95 ± 0.26 vs. 2.88 ± 0.38, P = 0.04) in the right colon, and diminutive ADR (62.5% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.022) in the right colon, when compared to the SIM evening group.

CONCLUSIONS

The SIM addition to PEG in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy can shorten cecal intubation time and improve BS scores and diminutive ADR of the right colon compared with the SIM addition to PEG in the morning of colonoscopy in bowel preparation.

Effectiveness of oolong tea and simethicone solution for lens cleansing during colonoscopy: A double-blinded randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

water is an imperfect agent for lens cleansing during endoscopy due to its incompetence to clean hydrophobic dirt, whereas amphiphilic surfactants have the potential to overcome the limitation of water. The trial was aimed to evaluate the cleansing effectiveness of 2 typical surfactants (simethicone solution and oolong tea) for colonoscopic lens.

METHODS

Oolong tea (O-), low concentration simethicone solution (S1-), high concentration simethicone solution (S2-) and distilled water (D-) were used as washing solutions for colonoscopic lens. Study I: The tip of the colonoscope was immersed in lard oil in order to simulate the blur, and photographs were taken toward a standard colonoscopy image in-vitro pre- and post- each cleansing procedure. The blurred areas of each image were quantified and compared. Study II: 395 consecutive patients who were due to colonoscopy examination were enrolled and randomized into O-, S2-, D-group. The volume of washing solution used and cleansing level during the examination procedure, adenoma and polyp detected per colonoscopy, insertion time and withdraw time were analyzed.

RESULTS

Study I: There were no differences in 4 groups for the blurred areas on images before lens cleansing. The blurred areas after lens cleansing were significantly smaller in 3 groups (O- 8.47 ± 20.91 vs S1- 13.06 ± 10.71 vs S2- 6.76 ± 8.49 vs D- 38.24 ± 29.69, P < .05) than water. The decline range of blurred areas after lens cleansing in oolong tea, low concentration simethicone solution, high concentration simethicone solution groups were significantly higher than that in distilled water group (O- 87.35 ± 20.81 vs S1- 78.12 ± 19.24 vs S2- 89.57 ± 8.50 vs D- 53.39 ± 28.45, P < .05). Study II: The volume of washing solution used in S2-group was significantly smaller than that in O-group and D-group. The cleansing level of the colonoscopic lens of O-group was significantly superior than that of S2-group and D-group.

CONCLUSIONS

The in-vitro test showed oolong tea and simethicone solution can effectively cleans the colonoscopic lens. The clinical trial demonstrated that oolong tea instead of water is effective to provide better visualization during colonoscopy.Registration: Chictr.org.cn No: ChiCTR1900025606.

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.

Pre-Endoscopy Drink of Simethicone and N-Acetylcysteine Significantly Improves Visualization in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Introduction With the advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE), clear mucosal visualization is essential to ensure optimal outcomes. Though routinely followed in Japan and Korea, pre-endoscopic preparation is seldom used in India. We evaluated the efficacy of a pre-endoscopic drink of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and simethicone in improving mucosal visibility during UGIE.

Patients and Methods This study was a retrospective, investigator blind study with a case–control study design. Cases included patients who received a pre-endoscopy drink of NAC and simethicone in 100 mL water administered 10 to 30 minutes prior to UGIE. Controls only had mandatory fasting for 6 to 8 hours prior to UGIE. Propensity score matching was done to ensure comparability between the groups. Digital images were taken at six standard landmarks during UGIE and stored. A blinded investigator subsequently analyzed the images and rated the mucosal visibility on a 3-point scale. The difference in the mean mucosal visibility between the cases and controls was compared.

Results Mean mucosal visibility during UGIE was significantly better using NAC with simethicone as compared with no preparation at esophagus (1.14 [0.37] vs. 1.47 [0.62], p < 0.05), gastric fundus (1.10 [0.30] vs. 1.55 [0.64], p < 0.05), gastric body (1.22 [0.50] vs. 1.62 [0.73], p < 0.05), gastric antrum (1.13 [0.37] vs. 1.47 [0.62], p < 0.05), and duodenal bulb (1.13 [0.34] vs. 1.33 [0.56], p < 0.05). In distal duodenum, though visibility improved with NAC with simethicone, the difference was insignificant. There were no adverse events related to the pre-endoscopy drink.

Conclusion A pre-endoscopy drink of NAC with simethicone can significantly improve mucosal visibility during UGIE. It is safe, cheap, easily available and maybe considered for routine utilization for ensuring optimal endoscopic outcomes.

Efficacy of low-dose versus high-dose simethicone with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Additional simethicone (SIM) can improve adequate bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, there is no consensus on the optimal dose of SIM. In this study, we compared the adequate bowel preparation rate with supplementation of split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-dose SIM (200 mg) versus high-dose SIM (1200 mg).

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded trial involving consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation as assessed by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score.

RESULTS

Four hundred subjects were randomly allocated to low-dose SIM or high-dose SIM group. Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to total bubble scale (BS) (8.49 ± 1.00 vs 8.39 ± 1.10, P = 0.07), total BBPS score (8.70 ± 0.81 vs 8.29 ± 1.18, P = 0.98), ADR (33.68% vs 31.79%, P = 0.69) or withdrawal time (13 [range, 10-16] min vs 13 [10-15] min, P = 0.96). The intubation time in low-dose SIM group was significantly shorter than that in high-dose SIM group (8 (4-16) min vs 10 [6-17] min, P = 0.04). In addition, BS scores as well as diminutive ADR in right colon were superior in the low-dose SIM group (2.68 ± 0.59 vs 2.52 ± 0.73, P = 0.03 and 54.29% vs 30.30%, P = 0.046, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Addition of low-dose SIM to split-dose 2 L PEG was as effective as addition of high-dose SIM with respect to adequate bowel preparation, ADR and patient tolerance. However, low-dose SIM was superior with respect to intubation time, right colon BS scores, right colon diminutive ADR and cost savings.

The advantage of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution combined with lactulose in patients with long interval preparation-to-colonoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The main aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) solution combined with lactulose in bowel preparation to find a new method for colonoscopy preparation to improve the quality of colonoscopy in patients with long interval preparation-to-colonoscopy (P-C).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded and placebo-controlled study was conducted. Three hundred sixty patients who were scheduled for colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. They were randomly divided into the PEG-lactulose group and the PEG-placebo group with 180 patients per arm. Two of the most common methods for estimating the quality of bowel preparation were the use of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and the measurement of the Bubble Scale and adenoma detection rate (ADR) as a secondary outcome of observation.

RESULTS

The PEG-lactulose group had a significant improvement in the quality of bowel preparation compared with the PEG-placebo group including colon cleanliness in interval P-C at 8 and 9 h (p<0.05) and bubble elimination in interval P-C at 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 h (p<0.05). Compared with the PEG-placebo group, the ADR (23.3% vs. 15.0%, p<0.05) and the size (≤5 mm) of the adenoma (45.2% vs. 18.5%, p<0.05) increased in the PEG-lactulose group, and there were significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

PEG solution combined with lactulose can improve the quality of colonoscopy in patients with long interval P-C to allow the patients to select more flexible colonoscopy time. It is worth further popularizing in clinical practice.

Novel sulfate tablet PBK-1701TC versus oral sulfate solution for colon cleansing: A randomized phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

PBK-1701TC is a novel sulfate tablet-based that contains 320 mg of simethicone and delivers 90% of the salt and water delivered by oral sulfate solution (OSS) preparation. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of PBK-1701TC compared with OSS in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This randomized, multicenter, phase 3 non-inferiority trial included adults aged 19 years or older with a body mass index of 19-30 kg/m² undergoing colonoscopy at five university hospitals in Korea. The primary efficacy endpoint was successful bowel-cleansing rate, defined as Harefield Cleansing Scale grade A or B as evaluated by blinded central readers. Secondary endpoints included the presence of residual air bubbles. Adverse events and laboratory evaluations were monitored to assess safety. Tolerability was assessed via participant interview.

RESULTS

Overall, 235 participants were randomized, and 224 were included in the per-protocol analysis (PBK, 112; OSS, 112). Successful bowel cleansing was achieved for 95.5% (107/112) in the PBK group, which was non-inferior to the OSS group (98.2%, 110/112) with a difference of -2.7% (one sided 97.5% confidence limit, -8.1%). The participants in the PBK group had fewer intraluminal bubbles (0.9% vs 81.3%, P < 0.001) and reported a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting, with better acceptance, taste, and willingness to repeat the regimen than those in the OSS group (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The novel sulfate tablet, PBK-1701TC, was non-inferior to OSS with respect to bowel-cleansing efficacy and exhibited better safety and tolerability in adults undergoing colonoscopy.

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.

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.

The role of oral simethicone on the adenoma detection rate and other quality indicators of screening colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Combining simethicone (SIM) with a colon preparation agent has been shown to improve mucosal visibility during screening colonoscopy, but its effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains unclear. SIM is commonly used through the endoscope to eliminate bubbles during endoscopy. However, this practice recently has been associated with endoscope-transmitted infections. Our aims were to determine the role of SIM added to a polyethylene glycol preparation on the ADR, procedure times, colon preparation, and intraprocedural use of SIM.

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, clinical trial of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. Patients with a high risk of colorectal cancer were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 different preparations: polyethylene glycol plus SIM or polyethylene glycol. Two endoscopists blinded to patient preparation regimens scored its quality by using the Boston Bowel Preparation scale (BBPS) and the bubble scale. Interobserver agreement was calculated. The polyp detection rate, ADR, intraprocedural use of SIM, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time were recorded. For study purposes, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time were combined to determine the effective procedure time.

RESULTS

No significant difference between the polyethylene glycol plus SIM and polyethylene glycol arms was seen regarding the ADR (33.3% vs 38.8%; P = .881) and effective procedure time (759.3 ± 253.1 seconds vs 800.2 ± 459.6 seconds; P = .373), respectively. Intraprocedural use of SIM as well as the bubble scale score were significantly lower in the polyethylene glycol plus SIM arm (1.6% vs 48.9%; P ≤ .05) and (0.1 vs 2.1; P ≤ .05), respectively. Conversely, no difference was found in the BBPS scores. The interobserver agreement for both scores was strong (bubble scale score kappa = .537; P < .05; BBPS score kappa = .184; P <.05).

CONCLUSION

Adding SIM to a polyethylene glycol preparation did not improve the ADR or effective procedure time. Nevertheless, it resulted in lower bubble scale scores, and more importantly, in less intraprocedural use of SIM. This simple and inexpensive intervention may have the potential to reduce the risk of endoscope-transmitted infections. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03119168.).

Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial evaluating simethicone pretreatment with bowel preparation during colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

The presence of small air bubbles and foam are an impediment to a successful colonoscopy. They impair an endoscopist’s view and diminish the diagnostic accuracy of the study. This has been particularly noted to be of concern with the switch to lower volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and bisacodyl combination preparation.

AIM

To evaluate the effect of oral simethicone addition to bowel preparation on intraluminal bubbles reduction during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Described is a prospective, randomized, multi-center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the use of premixed simethicone formulation with split-regimen, low-volume PEG-bisacodyl combination bowel preparation for 168 outpatients undergoing screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopies. Primary outcome includes evaluation of bubbles during colonoscopy graded using the Intraluminal Bubbles Scale. Secondary outcomes include evaluation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), total number of polyps, polyp size differentiation, polyp laterality, adenoma detection, mass detection, cecal insertion time, withdrawal time, and patient-reported adverse events.

RESULTS

Higher Intraluminal Bubbles grades III and IV (less than 75% of the mucosa cleared of bubbles/foam requiring intervention with simethicone infused wash) were detected in the placebo group [Simethicone n = 4/84 vs Placebo n = 20/84 (P = 0.007)]. BBPS total score was 7.42 [standard deviation (SD) = ± 1.51] in the simethicone group and 7.28 (SD = ± 1.44) in the placebo group (P = 0.542) from a total of 9. Significantly higher number of adenomas were detected in the simethicone group (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of simethicone to bowel preparation is well advised for its anti-foaming properties. The results of this study suggest that addition of oral simethicone can improve bowel wall visibility.

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.

Effect of supplemental simethicone for bowel preparation on adenoma detection during colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that supplemental simethicone (SIM) can improve bowel preparation based on polyethylene glycol, there is no consensus as to whether SIM can ultimately increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect of SIM on ADR during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to find relevant RCTs. RCTs evaluating the effect of pre-procedure SIM on the ADR during colonoscopy were finally included, and fixed effect models were applied.

RESULTS

Six trials involving 1855 patients were finally included. The present meta-analysis suggested that the ADR during colonoscopy was significantly increased by supplemental SIM (27.9% vs 23.3%, P = 0.02), with a relative risk of 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.03-1.39). Subgroup analysis suggested that supplemental SIM may be more useful to improve ADR during colonoscopy in endoscopic centers with low baseline ADR.

CONCLUSIONS

Supplemental SIM for bowel preparation based on polyethylene glycol is useful to improve the ADR during colonoscopy.

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.

Use of N-acetylcysteine plus simethicone to improve mucosal visibility during upper GI endoscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Upper GI endoscopy (UGE) is essential for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases. Mucus and bubbles may decrease mucosal visibility. The use of mucolytics could improve visualization. Our aim was to determine whether premedication with simethicone or simethicone plus N-acetylcysteine is effective in improving visibility during UGE.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with 2 control groups: no intervention and water 100 mL (W); and 3 intervention groups: simethicone 200 mg (S); S + N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 500 mg (S+NAC500); and S + NAC 1000 mg (S+NAC1000). The solution was ingested 20 minutes before UGE. Gastric visibility was evaluated in 4 segments with a previously described scale. A score of less than 7 points was defined as adequate visibility (AV). Water volume was used to improve visibility, and adverse reactions were evaluated as a secondary outcome. Multiple group comparison was performed using non-parametric one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty patients were included in the study, 68% female, mean age 49 years. The most common indication for UGE was epigastric pain/dyspepsia (33%). AV was more frequent in the S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 groups (65% and 67%) compared with no intervention (44%, P = .044) and water (41%, P = .022). The gastric total visibility scale (TVS) was significantly better in the S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 groups compared with water (P = .03 and P = .008). Simethicone was not different from no intervention and water. S+NAC1000 required less water volume to improve visibility. No adverse reactions from the study drugs were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 improves visibility during UGE. The use of simethicone did not show improvements in gastric visibility. TVS was worse in patients using water alone. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT 01653171.).

Evaluation of Clensia®, a new low-volume PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy: Multicentre randomized controlled trial versus 4L PEG

BACKGROUND

Success of colonoscopy is linked to the adequacy of bowel cleansing. Polyethylene glycol 4L (PEG 4L) solutions are widely used for colonic cleansing but with limitations concerning tolerability and acceptability.

AIM

To demonstrate the equivalence of a new low-volume PEG containing citrates and simeticone (Clensia) versus a standard PEG 4L.

METHODS

In this, multicentre, randomised, observer-blind trial, patients received either Clensia 2L or PEG 4L solution. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with colon cleansing evaluated as excellent or good.

RESULTS

422 patients received Clensia (n=213) or PEG 4L (n=209). Rate of excellent/good bowel cleansing was 73.6% and 72.3% in Clensia and PEG 4L group respectively. Clensia was demonstrated to be equivalent to PEG 4L. No SAEs were observed. Clensia showed better gastrointestinal tolerability (37.0% vs 25.4%). The acceptability was significantly better with Clensia in terms of proportion of subjects who felt no distress (Clensia 72.8% vs PEG 4L 63%, P=0.0314) and willingness-to-repeat (93.9% vs 82.2%, P=0.0002). The rate of optimal compliance was similar with both formulations (91.1% for Clensia vs 90.9% for PEG 4L, P=0.9388).

CONCLUSIONS

The low-volume Clensia is equally effective and safe in bowel cleansing compared to the standard PEG 4L, with better gastrointestinal tolerability and acceptability.

Improving of bowel cleansing effect for polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid using simethicone: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Low-volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) use is reported to be as safe and effective as traditional 4-L polyethylene glycol use. However, PEG-Asc produces bubbles, which cause problems during colonoscopy. Data on the effects of using antifoaming agents such as simethicone with PEG-Asc are lacking. The aim of this CONSORT-prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, controlled trial is to compare the quality of bowel preparation and compliance between PEG-Asc users and PEG-Asc plus simethicone users.

METHODS

Adult outpatients aged 18 to 80 years undergoing colonoscopy were recruited to the study. Two hundred sixty patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment arms, PEG-Asc or PEG-Asc plus simethicone. The primary outcome measure was the bowel cleansing quality using Boston bowel preparation scale and bubble scores. The secondary outcome measures were patient tolerability and doctor tolerability.

RESULTS

The simethicone group showed superior cleansing results (6-9 Boston scale scores: 99% vs. 84%, <5% bubble scores: 96% vs. 49%, P < 0.001) and fewer gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal fullness: 24% vs. 55%, colicky pain: 5% vs. 24%, P < 0.001) than the non-simethicone group. Moreover, endoscopist fatigue during colonoscopy was lower in the simethicone group than in the non-simethicone group (1.31 ± 0.75 vs. 2.97 ± 2.14, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

PEG-Asc plus simethicone use was more effective and associated with better patient and endoscopist tolerance than PEG-Asc use. Therefore, this combination is recommended as one of the promising methods for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

KEY POINTS

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

On-demand treatment with alverine citrate/simeticone compared with standard treatments for irritable bowel syndrome: results of a randomised pragmatic study

BACKGROUND

In routine practice, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms are often difficult to be relieved and impair significantly patients' quality of life (QoL). A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study has shown the efficacy of alverine citrate/simeticone (ACS) combination for IBS symptom relief.

AIM

As IBS symptoms are often intermittent, this pragmatic study was designed to compare the efficacy of an on-demand ACS treatment vs. that of usual treatments.

METHODS

Rome III IBS patients were enrolled by 87 general practitioners who were randomly allocated to one of two therapeutic strategies: on-demand ACS or usual treatment chosen by the physician. The primary outcome measure was the improvement of the IBSQoL score between inclusion and month 6.

RESULTS

A total of 436 patients (mean age: 54.4 years; women: 73.4%) were included, 222 in the ACS arm and 214 patients in the usual treatment arm, which was mainly antispasmodics. At 6 months, improvement of IBSQoL was greater with ACS than with the usual treatment group (13.8 vs. 8.4; p < 0.0008). The IBS-severity symptom score (IBS-SSS) was lower with ACS than in the usual treatment arm with a mean (SE) decrease of 170.0 (6.6) vs. 110.7 (6.7), respectively (p = 0.0001). An IBS-SSS < 75 was more frequent in the ACS group (37.7% vs. 16.0%; p < 0.0001). Improvement of both abdominal pain and bloating severity was also greater with the on-demand ACS treatment, which was associated with both lower direct and indirect costs.

CONCLUSIONS

After 6 months, on-demand ACS treatment led to a greater improvement of QoL, reduced the burden of the disease and was more effective for IBS symptom relief than usual treatments.

Factors influencing quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Recent technological advances in colonoscopy have led to improvements in both image enhancement and procedural performance. However, the utility of these technological advancements remain dependent on the quality of bowel preparation during colonoscopy. Poor bowel preparation has been shown to be associated with lower quality indicators of colonoscopy performance, such as reduced cecal intubation rates, increased patient discomfort and lower adenoma detection. The most popular bowel preparation regimes currently used are based on either Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte, a non-absorbable solution, or aqueous sodium phosphate, a low-volume hyperosmotic solution. Statements from various international societies and several reviews have suggested that the efficacy of bowel preparation regimes based on both purgatives are similar, although patients’ compliance with these regimes may differ somewhat. Many studies have now shown that factors other than the type of bowel preparation regime used, can influence the quality of bowel preparation among adult patients undergoing colonoscopy. These factors can be broadly categorized as either patient-related or procedure-related. Studies from both Asia and the West have identified patient-related factors such as an increased age, male gender, presence of co-morbidity and socio-economic status of patients to be associated with poor bowel preparation among adults undergoing routine out-patient colonoscopy. Additionally, procedure-related factors such as adherence to bowel preparation instructions, timing of bowel purgative administration and appointment waiting times for colonoscopy are recognized to influence the quality of colon cleansing. Knowledge of these factors should aid clinicians in modifying bowel preparation regimes accordingly, such that the quality of colonoscopy performance and delivery of service to patients can be optimised.

The effect on colon visualization during colonoscopy of the addition of simethicone to polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution: a randomized single-blind study

OBJECTIVES:

Colonic bubbles associated with polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) are common and obscure mucosal visualization. This study aimed to determine whether adding simethicone decreases the incidence of bubbles.

METHODS:

Prospective, single-blind, randomized comparison of split dose PEG-ELS vs. PEG-ELS+simethicone (PEG-S) for outpatient colonoscopy. Bubble severity for colonic segments was assessed on withdrawal as A=no/minimal bubbles, B=moderate bubbles/interfere with detecting 5 mm polyp, C=severe bubbles/interfere with detecting 10 mm polyp. Primary end point was Grade B or C bubbles in any colon segment. Secondary end points were cleansing quality, incidence and severity of side effects, and polyp detection.

RESULTS:

One hundred and thirty nine patients enrolled; 13 withdrew before colonoscopy. Of 123 patients evaluated, 62 took PEG-S and 61 PEG-ELS. The incidence of grade B or C bubbles was much lower with PEG-S compared with PEG-ELS (2% vs. 38% P=0.001). Overall cleansing (excellent or good) quality was not significantly different for either the whole colon (89% PEG-ELS, 94% of PEG-S, P=0.529) or right colon (88% PEG-ELS, 94% PEG-S, P=0.365). More PEG-S patients had excellent rather than good preps (whole colon 53% vs. 28%, P=0.004; right colon 53% vs. 35%, P=0.044). Need for any flushing was less with PEG-S (38% vs. 70%, P=0.001). The groups were not significantly different with respect to total procedure and withdrawal times, incidence or severity of side effects, or number of polyps/patient or adenomas/patient.

CONCLUSIONS:

Adding simethicone to PEG-ELS effectively eliminates bubbles, substantially reduces the need for flushing, and results in more excellent preparations.

Meta-analysis: the relative efficacy of oral bowel preparations for colonoscopy 1985-2010

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews of bowel preparation for colonoscopy have given contradictory answers.

AIM

To provide a definitive insight, using PRISMA-compliant methodology.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review identified randomised controlled trials comparing bowel preparation regimens. Data for quality of bowel preparation were pooled in multiple meta-analyses exploring a range of inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 104 qualifying studies were identified, the majority of which involved comparisons of sodium phosphate (NaP) or polyethylene glycol (PEG). There was no significant difference demonstrated between NaP and PEG overall (OR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.56-1.21; P = 0.36). Cumulative meta-analysis demonstrated that this conclusion has been qualitatively similar since the mid 1990s, with little quantitative change for the past 10 years. Amongst studies with previous day dosing in both study arms there was a significant advantage in favour of PEG (OR = 1.78; 95% CI = 1.13-2.81; P = 0.006). Studies focussing on results in the proximal colon also favoured PEG (OR = 2.36; 95% CI = 1.16-4.77; P = 0.012). PEG was also significantly more effective than non-NaP bowel preparation regimens (OR = 2.02; 95% CI = 1.08-3.78; P = 0.03). Other comparisons showed no significant difference between regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is no compelling evidence favouring either of the two most commonly used bowel preparation regimens, this may reflect shortcomings in study design. Where studies have ensured comparable dosage, or the clinically relevant outcome of proximal bowel clearance is considered, PEG-based regimens offer the most effective option.

Efficacy of premedication with activated Dimethicone or N-acetylcysteine in improving visibility during upper endoscopy

AIM: To assess the efficacy of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and activated Dimethicone in improving endoscopic mucosal visibility.

METHODS: A total of 148 patients were randomly allocated into four groups to receive one of the following premedications: group A: 100 mL water alone; group B: activated Dimethicone plus water (up to 100 mL); group C: NAC plus water (up to 100 mL); and group D: activated Dimethicone and NAC plus water (up to 100 mL). A single endoscopist blinded to the patients group assessed the gastric mucosal visibility scores (range 1-4) at four sites. The sum of the scores from the four sites was considered as the total mucosal visibility score (TMVS).

RESULTS: The patients in group B showed a significantly lower TMVS than those of groups A and C (P < 0.001). The TMVS in patients of group D was significantly lower than that of groups A and C (P < 0.001). The TMVS did not significantly differ between groups B and D (P > 0.05). The difference between TMVS of groups C and A was not significant (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Premedication with activated Dimethicone 20 min prior to the upper endoscopy leads to the best visibility. NAC does not improve visualization by itself.

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

BACKGROUND

The value of supplemental use of Simethicone in endoscopy including capsule endoscopy (CE), colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy is not addressed and is controversial.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies on the use of Simethicone for endoscopy were carried out. The effects of this preparation on the following endpoints were examined: small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ), completion rate, gastric transit time, small bowel transit time, diagnostic yield, efficacy of bowel preparation, degree of air bubbles and duration time.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies were eligible in this meta-analysis; 4 studies comparing purgative or fasting plus Simethicone with purgative or fasting alone for capsule endoscopy were identified. For patients who had supplemental Simethicone before CE, the SBVQ was significantly better ([odds ratio] OR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.74-4.65, p = 0.00), and the completion rate was comparable (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.44-1.44, p = 0.454). Also, 7 studies comparing purgative plus Simethicone with purgative alone for colonoscopy were identified. For patients who had supplemental Simethicone before colonoscopy, the efficacy of colon preparation was comparable (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 0.56-7.53, p = 0.27), but the air bubbles were significantly decreased (OR = 39.32, 95% CI: 11.38-135.86, p = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

Supplemental use of Simethicone before endoscopy improves the SBVQ, especially for patients who received no purgative, but does not affect the CE completion rate. It decreases air bubbles in the colonic lumen, but does not improve bowel preparation. And its effect on diagnostic yield remains controversial.

Bowel preparation and colonoscopy technique to detect non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms

Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colon cancer screening. In a recent study, however, 0.3% to 0.9% patients developed colorectal cancer within 3 years after removal of adenomas. Some reasons for the development of interval colorectal cancers include missed or incompletely removed lesions during the initial colonoscopy. Non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms are a potential contributor to the pool of missed lesions because they can be easily missed as a result of inadequate colon preparation or examination technique. This article discusses the methods that are useful to improve the quality of bowel preparation and examination technique.