Factors influencing quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists significantly affect the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) affect gastrointestinal motility, slowing gastric emptying and colonic transit. GLP-1RAs have an impact on gastric residue before endoscopy, but only limited data are available regarding its effect on the adequacy of colonic preparation. We investigated the association between GLP-1RA use and inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) for colonoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective study with GLP-1RA cases matched with controls (using propensity scores for age, sex, diabetes mellitus [DM], obesity, and co-morbidities). Data on demographics, medication use, procedural indications, and colonoscopy findings were collected. IBP ("poor preparation" on Aronchik scale or Boston Bowel preparation scale <5) was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

4876 patients treated with GLP-1RAs were included in the analysis and compared with 4876 controls selected from 333 648 patients without GLP-1RA use. Among the GLP-1RA patients, 10% (n = 487) had IBP compared with 197 (4%) of the control group (P<0.001). Subgroup analysis showed a higher rate of IBP among diabetic patients treated with GLP-1RA (284/2364 [12%]) than among diabetic patients without GLP-1RA treatment (118/2364 [5%]; P<0.001). Additionally, 203/2512 nondiabetic patients treated with GLP-1RAs had IBP (8%) compared with 79 of the nondiabetic non-GLP-1RA group (3%; P<0.001). On multivariate analysis, diabetes and GLP-1RA use were both found to be independent risk factors for IBP (odds ratio [OR] 1.4 and OR 2.7, respectively; both P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the necessity for special attention and tailored recommendations for both diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with GLP-1RAs in terms of colonic preparation prior to colonoscopy.

AN ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD PREDICTION MODEL TO IDENTIFY INADEQUATE BOWEL PREPARATION IN PATIENTS AT OUTPATIENT COLONOSCOPY

Background and Aims

Inadequate bowel preparation during colonoscopy is associated with decreased adenoma detection, increased costs, and patient procedural risks. This study aimed to develop a prediction model for identifying patients at high risk of inadequate bowel preparation for potential clinical integration into the EMR.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted using outpatient screening/surveillance colonoscopies at the University of North Carolina (UNC) from 2017 to 2022. Data were extracted from the EMRs of Epic and ProVation, including demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical variables. Logistic regression, LASSO regression, and gradient boosting machine (GBM) models were evaluated and validated in a held-out testing set.

Results

The dataset included 23,456 colonoscopies, of which 6.25% had inadequate bowel preparation. The reduced LASSO regression model demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.65 [95% CI 0.63-0.67] in the held-out testing set. The relative risk of inadequate bowel prep in the high-risk group determined by the model was 2.42 (95% CI 2.07-2.82), compared to patients identified as low risk. The model calibration in the testing set revealed that among patients categorized as having 0-11%, 11-22%, and 22-33% predicted risk of inadequate prep, the respective proportions of patients with inadequate prep were 5.5%, 19.3%, and 33.3%. Using the reduced LASSO model, a rudimentary code for a potential Epic FHIR application called PrepPredict was developed.

Conclusions

This study developed a prediction model for inadequate bowel preparation with the potential to integrate into the EMR for clinical use and optimize bowel preparation to improve patient care.

The effectiveness of walking exercise on the bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a single blind randomized clinical trial study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Bowel preparation is a crucial factor affecting the diagnostic accuracy of colonoscopy, and few randomized control trials evaluated enhancement in bowel preparation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of walking exercises on bowel preparation before a colonoscopy procedure.

METHODS

The present study is a single-blind randomized controlled trial involving 262 patients scheduled for colonoscopy procedures. These patients were randomly assigned to two groups: an intervention group (n = 131) and a control group (n = 131). In the intervention group, participants followed a predetermined plan that included the consumption of specific liquids and foods, bisacodyl pills, polyethylene glycol powder, and a regimen of walking exercises in preparation for their colonoscopy. Conversely, individuals in the control group followed the same regimen but were not instructed to engage in walking exercises. On the day of the colonoscopy, both groups were assessed for their level of physical activity using a foot counter. Additionally, an experienced gastroenterologist evaluated and compared the bowel preparation between the two groups using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

RESULTS

The number of footsteps recorded in the two groups exhibited a significant difference (P < 0.001). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups in terms of mean BBPS scores (6.26 ± 1.9 vs. 6.29 ± 1.9, P = 0.416), individuals who took more than 6900 steps had significantly higher BBPS scores compared to those with fewer than 6900 footsteps (6.62 ± 1.8 vs. 5.92 ± 1.9, P = 0.003).In the univariate analysis, BBPS was found to be significantly associated with individuals under the age of 50 (OR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.30-4.61, P = 0.006) and smoking status (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.17-0.94, P = 0.043). In the multivariate analysis, the relationship between BBPS and age below 50 and smoking remained significant (OR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.30-4.70, P = 0.005, and OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.93, P = 0.034, respectively).

CONCLUSION

A higher number of footsteps taken especially more than 6900 can significantly enhance bowel preparation; however, walking exercise as an intervention before colonoscopy is not significantly associated with BBPS. Also, older people and smokers seem to have fewer benefits from walking exercises for bowel preparation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN32724024 (Registration date:22/08/2018).

Loose Screws: Removal of Foreign Bodies From the Lower Gastrointestinal Tract

While both the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) have released guidelines on the management of ingested foreign bodies in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, neither has addressed indications or techniques for endoscopic removal of foreign bodies in the lower GI tract, perhaps due to the high likelihood of foreign body passage once the foreign body has reached the lower GI tract. We present the case of a 45-year-old woman presenting to the emergency department following the intentional ingestion of multiple screws and nails, complaining of acute abdominal pain and nausea. Imaging revealed four nails in the colon and two adjacent screws in the distal small bowel. In the absence of signs of acute obstruction or bowel perforation, she was admitted for expectant management but subsequently required endoscopic removal of two retained screws in the lower GI tract.

Efficacy of different bowel preparation regimen volumes for colorectal cancer screening and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures

BACKGROUND

Various volumes of bowel preparation are used in clinical practice. There is conflicting data on the effectiveness of individual regimens. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and compliance of currently used bowel preparations with the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures using data of the Dutch nationwide colorectal cancer screening (CRC) program.

METHODS

In a prospective, multicenter endoscopy database, we identified all CRC screening colonoscopies performed in 15 Dutch endoscopy centers from 2016 to 2020. We excluded procedures without documented bowel preparation or the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. Bowel preparation regimens were categorized into three groups, that is, 4-L (polyethylene glycol (PEG)), 2-L (2-L PEG with ascorbic acid) and ≤1-L volumes (sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate, 1L-PEG with sodium sulfate and ascorbic acid or oral sulfate solution). European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures included adequate BBPS score (≥6) (>90%), cecal intubation rate (CIR, >90%), adenoma detection rate (ADR, >25%) and polyp detection rate (PDR, >40%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictive factors for adequate BBPS and patient discomfort.

RESULTS

A total of 39,042 CRC screening colonoscopies were included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores, CIR, ADR and PDR for 4L, 2L and ≤1L regimens all met the minimum ESGE performance measures standards. However, an adequate BBPS score was more frequently seen with 2L regimens (98.0%) as compared to 4L (97.1%) and ≤1L regimens (97.0%) (p < 0.001), respectively. In addition, CIR was higher for ≤1L (98.4%) versus 4L (97.7%) and 2L (97.9%) regimens (p = 0.001), ADR higher for lower volume (≤1L (60.0%) and 2L (61.2)) versus higher volume (4L (58.6%)) regimens (p < 0.001), and PDR higher for ≤1L (70.0%) and 2L (70.8%) versus 4L (67.2%) regimens (p < 0.001). Boston Bowel Preparation Scale for ≤1L regimens was higher when combined with bisacodyl (97.3%) than without (95.6%) (p < 0.001). Overall, bisacodyl use was independently associated with higher patient discomfort (odds ratios = 1.47, confidence intervals = 1.26-1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite variations in bowel preparation volumes, all regimens meet the minimum ESGE performance measures for bowel preparation and other quality parameters. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale can be further improved if ultra low volume regimens are combined with bisacodyl. The choice for either bowel preparation volume can therefore be based on volume-tolerance and patient preference.

Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature

Adequate bowel cleansing is critical for a high-quality colonoscopy because it affects diagnostic accuracy and adenoma detection. Nevertheless, almost a quarter of procedures are still carried out with suboptimal preparation, resulting in longer procedure times, higher risk of complications, and higher likelihood of missing lesions. Current guidelines recommend high-volume or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)/non-PEG-based split-dose regimens. In patients who have had insufficient bowel cleansing, the colonoscopy should be repeated the same day or the next day with additional bowel cleansing as a salvage option. A strategy that includes a prolonged low-fiber diet, a split preparation regimen, and a colonoscopy within 5 h of the end of preparation may increase cleansing success rates in the elderly. Furthermore, even though no specific product is specifically recommended in the other cases for difficult-to-prepare patients, clinical evidence suggests that 1-L PEG plus ascorbic acid preparation are associated with higher cleansing success in hospitalized and inflammatory bowel disease patients. Patients with severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min) should be prepared with isotonic high volume PEG solutions. Few data on cirrhotic patients are currently available, and no trials have been conducted in this population. An accurate characterization of procedural and patient variables may lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation, especially in patients undergoing resection of left colon lesions, where intestinal preparation has a poor outcome. The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence on the risk factors influencing the quality of bowel cleansing in difficult-to-prepare patients, as well as strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in these patients.

One-Day versus Three-Day Low-Residue Diet and Bowel Preparation Quality before Colonoscopy: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

One-day low-residue diet (LRD) is recommended before colonoscopy, but only three single-center trials compared the 1-day versus 3-day LRD. The aim of this multicenter study was to compare the impact of a 3-day versus 1-day LRD on its ability to adequately and successfully prepare the bowel of outpatients that require a colonoscopy. The outpatients' tolerance and adherence to the LRD were also considered.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients were randomized to 1-day versus 3-day LRD at three open-access endoscopy units. The primary endpoint consisted of the proportion of patients with a satisfactory degree of bowel cleanliness (Score 2-3 on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] in each segment). Secondary endpoints were patients' tolerance and adherence to the prescribed diet evaluated by a standardized questionnaire.

RESULTS

289 patients were included in the study (1-day LRD arm = 143, 3-day LRD arm = 146). BBPS ≥2 was not significantly different in the two dietary regimens in any of the three colonic segments (71% vs. 72%, p = 0.9). The percentage of patients with incomplete preparation was similar in the two arms (9% vs. 9%; p = 1.0). No significant differences were found among colonoscopy findings in terms of abnormalities (81% vs. 84%, p = 0.8). Both groups scored similarly in overall tolerance to LRD (48% vs. 49%, p = 1.0) and also in whether they would have adopted a different dietary regimen (p = 0.3).

CONCLUSION

Our multicenter randomized study confirmed that optimal bowel cleansing is reached through a 1-day LRD.

Bowel cleansing efficacy of 1 L NER1006versus macrogol and 3 L polyethylene glycol using split-dose administration

Background and Aim

Colonoscopies are an important diagnostic technique in the detection of colorectal cancer and colonic disease. Adequate examination is dependent on the degree of mucosal visibility, with poor cleansing impeding the detection of neoplasms. These patients require shorter colonoscopy surveillance intervals, longer hospital stays, and increased healthcare costs-rendering a screening colonoscopy cost-ineffective. In Australia and the Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service (GCHHS), macrogol and 3 L of polyethylene glycol are the preferred regimen given its safety profile and efficacy. Yet, little is known locally about the use of the new low-volume bowel preparation NER1006 (Plenvu) given its recent registration with the Therapeutic Goods of Australia (TGA). The primary outcome assessed the bowel cleansing efficacy of NER1006 compared with 7 days of macrogol and 3 L of polyethylene glycol using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), while also assessing the influence of notable patient characteristics such as age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and the patients Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Secondary outcomes assessed the polyp detection rate and procedural factors including cecal intubation, scope withdrawal time, and rebooking rates.

Methods

Data from all patients who underwent an outpatient colonoscopy procedure at GCHHS between 1 July 2020 and 30 September 2020 were analyzed. Patients were aged 50-74 years of age and were referred for a screening colonoscopy due to a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) result from the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.

Results

Of the 238 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 108 patients received NER1006 and 130 patients received macrogol and 3 L polyethylene glycol. NER1006 achieved superior overall (P < 0.001) and right-sided colon cleansing (P = 0.016). There was an even distribution of males and females (P = 0.118), the mean age of both cohorts was <65 years of age. The macrogol and 3 L polyethylene glycol group had a statistically higher BMI (P < 0.001) and CCI (P < 0.001). Cecal intubation success was achieved in both cohorts (≥95%) and scope withdrawal time was ≥6 min, polyp detection was non-superior (P = 0.824), but superior in NER1006 when BBPS ≥6 (P = 0.002). Rebooking rates were significantly lower in the NER1006 group (P = 0.013).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that NER1006 was superior in terms of overall and right-sided bowel cleansing as a primary endpoint. Patient factors demonstrated to be independent predictors of inadequate bowel preparation. Future studies should aim to explore the safety and tolerability of NER1006 while also assessing the bowel cleansing effectiveness in patients with a high BMI and comorbidity index.

Effect of the Weekend on Bowel Preparation Quality in Outpatient Colonoscopies

INTRODUCTION

Inadequate bowel preparation has been associated with a higher likelihood of missing adenomatous polyps. Colonoscopies immediately following a weekend may be prone to inadequate bowel preparation. This study aims to evaluate if day of the week is a predictor of bowel preparation adequacy, while assessing other patient and procedural variables and their effect on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy between January 2015 and April 2020. Adequacy of bowel preparation was compared among all days of the week and days following federal holidays. Secondary outcomes included patient demographics, indication and timing of the procedure.

RESULTS

Of 4,279 colonoscopies, Monday had the highest rate of inadequate preparation (BBPS < 6) (16.5%) compared to other days of the week (p < .001). Post-holiday procedures were not associated with poor bowel preparation (p = .901). Similarly, on multivariate analysis, we found that procedures on Monday (OR 1.67 95%CI 1.33-2.10, p < .001) and African-American race (OR 1.34 95%CI 1.11-1.62, p = .003) were associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Females were more likely to have adequate bowel preparation (OR 0.71 95%CI 0.59-0.86, p < .001).

DISCUSSION

Bowel preparation on Mondays is more likely to be inadequate than other days of the week. Additionally, gender and ethnicity appear to be associated with quality of bowel preparation. A better characterization of procedural and patient variables can lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation.

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.

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

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

Predictive factors of inadequate bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of factors like demographic items, comorbidities, and drug history on the inadequacy of colonic preparation before colonoscopy.

Background

Inadequate bowel preparation can lead to lower polyp detection rates, longer procedure times, and lower cecal intubation rates.

Methods

This population-based study was conducted on 2476 Iranian adults who were referred to two tertiary centers for elective colonoscopy between 2017 and 2018. Bowel preparation quality was scored by the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS). Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to find the independent predictors of bowel preparation inadequacy.

Results

The results showed that 31.8% of patients had inadequate bowel preparation before their colonoscopy. Higher age, BMI>25, abdominal circumference>95 cm, low fruit consumption, and history of smoking were independently correlated with bowel preparation inadequacy. Additionally, using NSAIDs and SSRIs were correlated with bowel preparation adequacy in multivariate regression analysis. Finally, age, gender, ethnicity, BMI, abdominal circumference, fruit consumption, smoking, NSAIDs, SSRIs, education, constipation, physical activity, and diabetes entered the predictive model of this study. The area under the curve (AUC) reached 0.70 in the final step.

Conclusion

The independent risk factors associated with colonic preparation inadequacy were identified, and herein, a predictive model is suggested for identifying patients with a high risk of bowel preparation inadequacy before a colonoscopy so that alternative preparation techniques can be employed among high-risk groups to yield optimal preparation quality.

Risk Factors for Inadequate Bowel Preparation During Colonoscopy in Nigerian Patients

Background The past few decades have witnessed the introduction of various innovative technologies into colon study by colonoscopy. A well-prepared bowel is crucial to their effective utilization. An inadequate bowel preparation during colonoscopy is associated with increased technical difficulties, enhanced risks of perforation, longer examination durations, reduced adenoma detection rates, and additional costs related to repeated colonoscopies. There is a paucity of literature from Africa on the multiple patient factors that affect the quality of bowel preparation; hence, the need to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation to allow for more diligence in this special group. Aim To study the risk factors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy and identify the group of patients who need intensified preparation in a Nigerian population. Methods A case-control study of consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy in an open access/referral-based multi-disciplinary endoscopy facility in Port Harcourt metropolis, Nigeria from March 2014 to November 2020. Consecutive adult patients who underwent colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation irrespective of the indication were retrospectively identified. Each case of inadequate bowel preparation while using a particular bowel preparation agent was matched with the next colon study with adequate bowel preparation (control) for the same agent in a 1:1 ratio. The variables collated were age, gender, literacy level, colonoscopy indication, medical history, bowel preparation agent, timing of endoscopy, and outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Results There were 143 cases of inadequate bowel preparation during colonoscopy included in the study with an equal number of control (cases of adequate bowel preparation). The age of patients ranged from 24 years to 92 years. Bleeding per rectum - 122(42.7%), and screening for colorectal cancer - 67(23.4%), were the leading indications for colonoscopy in study patients. Bivariate analysis of cases and controls revealed significant difference in educational status, comorbidity of hypertension, and constipation (p < 0.01, p = 0.082, p = 0.143, respectively). In the multivariate analysis of risk factors, the odds ratio (OR) for secondary level of education and below was 2.54 (95% confidence interval CI 1.50-4.30; p = 0.001); hypertension - OR 1.64 (95% CI 0.98-2.73; p = 0.058); constipation - OR 1.27 (95% CI 0.52-3.10; p = 0.598). Conclusion The educational status of patients is a strong risk factor associated with inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in this Nigerian population. There is a need for effective patient education especially for patients with a low literacy level.

Risk Factors for Suboptimal Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Pediatric Patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Suboptimal bowel cleansing is common in children and can impact diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes. We aimed to identify risk factors for suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy in pediatric patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all patients ages 0 to 21 years who underwent colonoscopy at a children's hospital from 2015 to 2019 in the United States. Demographics and clinical information were obtained from the electronic health record. The primary outcome was suboptimal bowel preparation measured by the endoscopist on a dichotomized Aronchik Scale. Univariate and multivariate regression modeling were used to determine independent predictors of suboptimal preparation.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and eight patients (mean age 12.17 years [±5.14], boys 465 (51.2%), were included in the analysis. Suboptimal preparation was noted in 242 (26.7%). On univariate analysis, suboptimal preparation was more common in those of younger age (38.6%), Medicaid (32.1%), Spanish as primary language (35.7%), and failure to thrive (FTT) (45.9%). Suboptimal preparations were less common in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (11.6%). After adjustment for other covariates, IBD and FTT maintained their statistical associations, IBD (odds ratio [OR] 0.27 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.095-0.75, P =  0.01), FTT (OR 1.98 95% CI 1.28-3.06, P =  <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first investigation of pediatric patients to identify independent risk factors for suboptimal bowel preparation. We confirm Medicaid status and English as a second language as risk factors as well as highlight distinct associations from those reported in the adult literature including FTT and younger age. IBD was associated with optimal cleansing. Future research to understand the mechanisms of inferred risk or potential protection is required.

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

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

Safety and efficacy of sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid bowel preparation in patients with baseline renal impairment or diabetes: subanalysis of a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Selecting a bowel preparation for patients with renal impairment or diabetes requires special consideration. We aimed to describe the effect of baseline renal impairment or diabetes on the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of low-volume sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (SPMC) ready-to-drink oral solution bowel preparation.

METHODS

A post hoc secondary analysis was performed from a randomized, assessor-blinded study of SPMC oral solution bowel preparation in participants with mild or moderate baseline renal impairment or diabetes. Primary efficacy endpoint ('responders') was the proportion of participants with 'excellent' or 'good' ratings on a modified Aronchick Scale (AS). Secondary efficacy outcomes were the quality of ascending colon cleansing from the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and selected results from the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), adenoma detection, and laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

Similar overall colon cleansing was demonstrated in the subgroups, with >85% of participants in any subgroup rated as responders by the AS, and >92% of participant responders by the BBPS. Most participants reported a tolerable bowel preparation, regardless of baseline renal impairment or diabetes history. Safety of SPMC oral solution was similar between all subgroups and the overall cohort. For the mild renal impairment, moderate renal impairment, and diabetes subgroups, respectively, commonly reported, drug-related AEs were nausea (2.6%, 5.3%, 1.4%) and headache (2.2%, 2.6%, 4.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Ready-to-drink SPMC oral solution demonstrated efficacious colon cleansing in patients with baseline mild/moderate renal impairment or diabetes, with a tolerable bowel preparation reported by most.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03017235.

Impact of a Telephone Intervention on Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy in the Elderly

Bowel preparation is the basis of colonoscopy, and adequate bowel preparation is essential to the success of colonoscopy. Studies have been reported that telephone intervention can improve the quality of bowel preparation, while it remains unclear regarding effectiveness with the elderly. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of telephone intervention on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in elderly outpatients. In total, 162 outpatients older than 65 years were enrolled and randomly divided into a control group and a study group. Patients in the study group were re-educated through telephone by a specific nurse 2 days before colonoscopy, whereas participants in the control group received education only on the day of appointment. The Ottawa score was used to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation between the two groups. In this study, no significant differences were observed in age, gender, body mass index, educational level, smoking and/or alcohol drinking, waiting time to colonoscopy, reasons for colonoscopy, and colonoscopic findings between the control group and the study group. Participants in the study group had higher adequate bowel preparation and compliance than the control group (83.1% vs. 59.5%, p = .03; 96.4% vs. 74.7%, p < .001). Univariate analysis showed that only noncompliance with start time was significantly associated with satisfactory bowel preparation in elderly patients. In conclusion, telephone intervention 2 days before colonoscopy can improve the quality of bowel preparation in the elderly.

Frequency of hyponatremia caused by sodium picosulfate solution when used as a bowel cleansing agent for colonoscopy

Objective:

To determine the frequency of hyponatremia in patients taking Sodium Picosulfate Solution (SPS) solution for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy and to compare serum sodium levels before and after SPS.

Methods:

This interventional study was conducted at Dr. Ruth K. M. Pfau, Civil Hospital Karachi between June 2019 to November 2019. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were included in the study. All patients were given SPS. Two samples of blood for electrolytes were taken, one 30 minutes before taking SPS solution and another 30 minutes before colonoscopy. Paired sample t-test was used to determine the difference between serum sodium level before taking the colonoscopy solution and serum sodium level before colonoscopy.

Results:

Fifty- four patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were included. Out of the 54 patients 28 (51.9%) were males and 26 (48.1%) were females. Mean sodium levels before taking colonoscopy solution was 139.7 ±3.5 mEq/L and mean sodium level before colonoscopy was 138.9 ±3.8 mEq/L. The difference between serum sodium level before taking SPS colonoscopy solution and before colonoscopy was found to be statistically insignificant (t (53) = 1.308; p = 0.196).

Conclusion:

No serious adverse effects were reported in any of our patients. There was no significant difference in the serum sodium level of patients undergoing colonoscopy before taking SPS bowel preparation solution and serum sodium level before colonoscopy.

An Evidence-based Approach Towards Targeted Patient Education to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

GOALS AND BACKGROUND

Quality of bowel preparation is an important factor influencing adenoma detection. Patient education is believed to improve the quality of bowel preparation but might be resource-intensive. We aimed to (a) identify risk factors for failed bowel preparations and (b) develop and test the efficacy of a screening tool that allows to prospectively identify and target patients at increased risk.

STUDY

Part 1: 76 consecutive outpatients with poor bowel preparation were compared with 76 age-matched and gender-matched outpatients with good preparation from the same procedure lists. Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained from centralized databases. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for poor bowel preparation. Part 2: on the basis of results of part 1, a screening tool for prospectively identifying patients at high risk was developed, and targeted education tested.

RESULTS

We identified the use of opioids or other constipating agents and low socioeconomic status as risk factors for poor bowel preparation [odds ratio (OR)=2.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22-6.80 and OR=2.43; 95% CI: 1.25-4.72]. Diabetes, hypothyroidism, age, and gender were found to have no effect on quality. When education was provided only to patients at increased risk, the targeted approach did not negatively affect the proportion of poor preparation (OR=6.12%; 95% CI: 4.79%-7.78% vs. OR=5.73%; 95% CI: 4.61%-7.10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor bowel preparation is associated with specific risk factors. Identifying and specifically targeting education at patients with these risk factors appears to facilitate more efficient use of education resources in endoscopy.

Improving the Quality of Bowel Preparation: Rewarding Patients for Success or Intensive Patient Education?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The quality of the bowel preparation is a critical parameter for the outcome of colonoscopies. It is well established that the bowel preparation modality (e.g., split or larger volume preparation) significantly improves the quality of the bowel preparation. Patient compliance is another important factor impacting on the quality of bowel preparations that receives relatively little research attention. We aimed to explore if intensified education or a lottery ticket as reward for good bowel preparation could improve outcomes.

METHODS

After informed consent, all patients received a standardized printed information booklet. In a randomized fashion, patients were offered (a) a lottery scratchy ticket with an opportunity to win $25,000 as "reward" for good bowel preparation, (b) an education session delivered over the phone by a trained nurse, or (c) no additional measure.

RESULTS

Overall, the quality of the bowel preparation was rated good or very good in 69.1% (95% CI 61.7-75.7%) of patients. Reward intervention did not influence the quality of bowel preparation (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.09-1.91, p = 0.260); however, bowel preparation quality decreased in patients randomized to receive the additional education (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96, p = 0.042). Neither intervention significantly impacted on polyp detection rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrasting general beliefs, additional interventions (e.g., incentives or phone consultation) did not improve the quality of the bowel preparation. The unexpected result shows that utilizing extra resources must be balanced against real-world outcomes and may not always provide the expected result.

Factors affecting bowel preparation adequacy and procedural time

Background and Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Effectiveness in Bowel Cleansing and Patient Tolerability of Polyethylene Glycol versus Sodium Picosulphate in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is considered as a gold standard investigation for screening of colorectal cancer and other lower gastrointestinal pathologies. Adequate bowel preparation is absolutely necessary for a fruitful colonoscopy. Various bowel cleansing agents are being used for his purpose. The aim of the present study was to compare the two bowel cleansing agents: a single dose of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) solution and a split dose of Sodium Picosulfate (Na PICOSUL) tablet with regards to cleansing efficacy and tolerability among the patients scheduled for colonoscopy.

METHODS

It is an open-label hospital-based observational study. A total of sixty-four patients were grouped randomly into two groups of bowel cleansing agents that are PEG and Na PICOSUL during the study period between 1^st December 2015 and 30^th November 2016. Patients' tolerability was evaluated using a structured questionnaire, and the bowel cleansing efficacy was evaluated using the Aronchick Bowel Preparation Scale (ABPS).

RESULTS

The group that received PEG solution was found to have better efficacy than that which received Na PICOSUL tablet (63.3% versus 29.4%, respectively, with a P value < 0.028) with excellent grade as per ABPS. The Na PICOSUL group was found better in terms of tolerability than the PEG group as nausea/vomiting was encountered significantly higher in the PEG group than in the Na PICOSUL group (43.3% versus 11.8%, respectively, with a P value < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic preparation with a split dose of Na PICOSUL tablet was better tolerated than the evening before regimen of PEG solution. However, PEG solution was found to be more efficacious in bowel cleansing, but procedural performance and lesion detection were similar for both agents.

Efficacy of mosapride citrate with a split dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Old age is a risk factor of suboptimal bowel preparation. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mosapride citrate with a split dose of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients (aged ≥65 years) before they underwent a colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective investigator-blinded randomized study was conducted from November 2017 to October 2018. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups, a mosapride group (mosapride citrate with a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid) or a non-mosapride group (a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid alone). Mosapride citrate 15 mg (Gastin CR) was administered once with each split-dose of the bowel preparation. The bowel preparation quality was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

RESULTS

A total of 257 patients were finally included and analyzed in our study. The total BBPS score was significantly higher in the mosapride group than in the non-mosapride group (8.53 vs 8.24, P = .033). The BBPS scores of the right colon and mid-colon were 2.75 vs 2.61 (P = .044) and 2.89 vs 2.79 (P = .030), respectively. The rate of adequate bowel preparation (BBPS ≥ 6) was similar in both groups (98.4% vs 98.5%, P = .968), while the rate of excellent bowel preparation (BBPS = 9) was higher in the mosapride group than in the non-mosapride group (73.8% vs 61.1%, P = .029). The total incidence of adverse events during the administration of the bowel cleansing agent, particularly abdominal fullness, was lower in the mosapride group (11.9% vs 30.5%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The administration of mosapride citrate with a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid in elderly patients showed an increase in bowel preparation efficacy and reduced adverse events, particularly abdominal fullness, during the administration of a bowel cleansing agent.

Predictive factors of an incomplete examination and inadequate small-bowel cleanliness during capsule endoscopy

AIM

the aim of this study was to determine predictive factors for an incomplete capsule endoscopy and an inadequate small-bowel preparation in capsule endoscopy.

METHODS

predictive factors for an incomplete capsule endoscopy were evaluated. Therefore, all patients with incomplete examinations performed between June 2009 and February 2016 were retrospectively included and compared with all patients with complete procedures performed between January 2014 and February 2016. Predictive factors of an inadequate small-bowel cleanliness were assessed. Therefore, the subset of patients that underwent capsule endoscopy between January 2014 and February 2016, including incomplete examinations, were evaluated. Small-bowel cleanliness was evaluated according to a quantitative index and a qualitative evaluation scale. Data with regard to patient and capsule endoscopy was analyzed.

RESULTS

31 incomplete and 122 complete capsule endoscopies were included in the analysis of predictive factors for an incomplete capsule endoscopy. The degree of dependency (OR = 4.67; p = 0.028), performance of a capsule endoscopy in hospitalized patients (OR = 4.04; p = 0.006) and prior abdominal surgery (OR = 3.45; p = 0.012) were independent predictive factors of an incomplete procedure. 130 patients were included in the analysis of predictive factors for an inadequate small-bowel cleanliness. The mean quantitative index value was 7.3 (s.d. ± 2.3); 41.6% and 58.5% of capsule endoscopies were classified as poor-fair and good/excellent respectively, according to the qualitative evaluation. Independent predictive factors for an inadequate preparation according to the quantitative index included male gender (Beta = -0.79; p = 0.028), small-bowel transit time (Beta = -0.007; p < 0.0001) and cardiac disease (Beta = -1.29; p = 0.001). Associated factors according to the qualitative evaluation included male gender (OR = 0.406; p = 0.027) and small-bowel transit time (SBTT) (OR = 0.993; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

inpatient status, higher degrees of dependency and abdominal surgery are predictive factors for an incomplete capsule endoscopy; male gender and higher small-bowel transit time are predictive factors for an inadequate cleanliness.

Poor Health Literacy and Medication Burden Are Significant Predictors for Inadequate Bowel Preparation in an Urban Tertiary Care Setting

GOALS

The goal of this study was to identify factors impacting the quality of bowel preparation in an urban tertiary care setting.

BACKGROUND

Inadequate bowel preparation is encountered in 17% to 32% of colonoscopies performed in the United States. Suboptimal colonic visualization reduces the yield of screening colonoscopies and increases healthcare costs because of longer procedure times and aborted procedures.

STUDY

We performed a cross-sectional survey in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy within the Johns Hopkins Health System. A Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) score of <5 was considered inadequate. Fisher's exact, χ tests and univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression were performed to assess the strength of the association for selected factors with a BBPS<5.

RESULTS

In total, 467 patients (76.3% response rate) completed the survey between August 2017 and October 2017. The median BBPS score was 7, and 81.4% of patients had an adequate bowel preparation (BBPS≥5). There was significant association between bowel preparation adequacy and level of education, health literacy, functional status, income, and medication burden. When adjusted for other factors, poor confidence in filling forms (OR, 24.1; P<0.001), multiple daily prescription medications (OR, 12.49; P=0.02) and poor functional status (OR, 2.82; P=0.03) had the highest odds of predicting inadequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate bowel preparation is a significant problem accounting for reduced yield of screening and increased health care costs. Poor health literacy, functional status, and number of daily medications are significant factors predicting inadequate bowel preparation in the tertiary care setting.

Quality optimisation in colonoscopy: a function of time of colonoscopy or bowel preparation

To test the hypothesis claimed in recent studies that quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy could be influenced by the time of the day colonoscopy is performed. Do patients in morning list have better bowel preparation than those on the afternoon list? Retrospective analysis of 736 consecutive patients who had colonoscopy from 1^st August to 31^st December 2012. Patients with poor bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Prep Score 6 or less) were identified (n = 242). Colonoscopy reports of these patients analysed. Patients were stratified into two groups (am and pm) and results compared. Mean patient age 63.9 years (range 19-89). Male to female ratio 1:1. 92% of patients were given Moviprep. for bowel preparation. 32.9% (242/736) of patients were identified as having inadequate bowel preparation. 37.7% of morning list patients had poor bowel preparation. 26.7% of afternoon list patients had poor bowel preparation. 14.7% (108/736) had incomplete colonoscopy, of which 26.9% (29/108) were due to poor bowel preparation. The commonest reasons for incomplete examination were patient discomfort & bowel looping. Our study demonstrates that morning session patients had poorer bowel preparation than the afternoon session patients in contrast to published evidence in recent literature. This implies that timing of bowel preparation is probably more important than timing of colonoscopy. Poor bowel preparation does not seem to have a significant impact on the colonoscopy failure rate in this series.

Efficacy and safety of a ready-to-drink bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

We performed a randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, multicenter, non-inferiority (NI) study to compare the safety and efficacy of a ready-to-drink formulation of sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, and citric acid (SPMC oral solution) with a powder formulation (P/MC powder) for oral solution.

METHODS

Eligible participants (adults undergoing elective colonoscopy) were randomized 1:1 to split-dose SPMC oral solution or P/MC powder. The primary efficacy endpoint assessed overall colon-cleansing quality with the Aronchick Scale (AS), and the key secondary efficacy endpoint rated quality of right colon cleansing with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Assessments were performed by a treatment-blinded endoscopist. Tolerability was assessed using the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Safety assessments included adverse events and laboratory evaluations.

RESULTS

The study included 901 participants: 448 for SPMC oral solution; 453 for P/MC powder. SPMC oral solution demonstrated non-inferiority to P/MC powder {87.7% (393/448) responders versus 81.5% (369/453) responders [difference (95% confidence interval): 6.3% (1.8, 10.9)]}. The key secondary efficacy objective assessing the right colon was also met. According to the prespecified hierarchical testing, after meeting the primary and key secondary objectives, SPMC oral solution was tested for superiority to P/MC powder for the primary endpoint (p = 0.0067). SPMC oral solution was well tolerated. Most common adverse events were nausea (3.1% versus 2.9%), headache (2.7% versus 3.1%), hypermagnesemia (2.0% versus 5.1%), and vomiting (1.3% versus 0.7%) for SPMC oral solution and P/MC powder, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Ready-to-drink SPMC oral solution showed superior efficacy of overall colon cleansing compared with P/MC powder, with similar safety and tolerability.[ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03017235.].

Factors Affecting Proximal Colon Cleansing Based on Bowel Movement Kinetics: A Prospective Observational Study

Background

Previous studies have suggested that relatively poor bowel preparation in the proximal colon, compared to that in the distal colon, could decrease the usefulness of colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to determine whether the “first defecation time” after polyethylene glycol (PEG) administration affects the cleansing quality in the proximal colon.

Methods

A total of 425 individuals who were scheduled to undergo a screening colonoscopy were enrolled prospectively at the healthcare center of St. Vincent's Hospital, Suwon, Korea, between April 2015 and March 2016. Bowel cleansing was performed using 4 L of PEG. Surveys were conducted to obtain information regarding the “first defecation time.” Endoscopists assessed the quality of bowel preparation in each bowel segment.

Results

We investigated 425 consecutive eligible cases. The mean “first defecation time” after PEG administration was 54.35 min. The quality of bowel preparation was poorer in the proximal colon than that in the distal colon. The adequate (excellent, good) and inadequate (fair, poor) proximal colon preparation groups comprised 360 (84.7%) and 65 (15.3%) patients, respectively. A multivariate analysis revealed that female gender (P = 0.029), small waist circumference (P = 0.027), and the long “first defecation time” (P = 0.034) were independently associated with inadequate bowel preparation in the proximal colon.

Conclusion

Our data document that the “first defecation time,” female gender, and a small waist circumference affect the quality of preparation in the proximal colon. Inadequate preparation in the proximal colon was more common in females. Patients with these factors undergoing colonoscopy should be monitored carefully.

No significant difference in clinically relevant findings between Pillcam® SB3 and Pillcam® SB2 capsules in a United States veteran population

BACKGROUND

Capsule endoscopy (CE) allows for a non-invasive small bowel evaluation for a wide range of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and diseases. Capsule technology has been rapidly advancing over recent years, often improving image frequency and quality. The Pillcam^® SB3 (SB3) capsule is one such technology that offers an adaptive frame rate advantage over the previous versions of the capsule the Pillcam^® SB2 (SB2). Some have proposed that this improvement in capsule technology may lead to increased diagnostic yields; however, real world clinical data is currently lacking.

AIM

To evaluate the clinically relevant findings of SB3 and SB2 capsules in a population of United States veterans.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 260 consecutive CE studies was performed including 130 SB3 and 130 SB2 capsule studies. Recorded variables included: age, gender, type of capsule, body mass index, exam completion, inpatient status, opioid use, diabetes, quality of preparation, gastric transit time, small bowel transit time, indication, finding, and if the exam resulted in a change in clinical management. The primary outcome measured was the detection of clinically relevant findings between SB3 and SB2 capsules.

RESULTS

Mean age of the study population was 67.1 ± 10.4 years and 94.2% of patients were male. Of these 28.1% were on opioid users. The most common indications for capsule procedure were occult GI bleeding (74.6%) and overt GI bleeding (14.6%). Rates of incomplete exam were similar between SB3 and SB2 groups (16.9% vs 9.2%, P = 0.066). The overall rate of clinically relevant finding was 48.9% in our study. No significant difference was observed in SB3 vs SB2 capsules for clinically relevant findings (46.2% vs 51.5%, P = 0.385) or change in clinical management (40.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.135).

CONCLUSION

Our study found no significant difference in clinically relevant findings between SB3 and SB2 capsules.

Clear liquid diet before bowel preparation predicts successful chromoendoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Chromoendoscopy (CE) has been shown to generate both a superior diagnostic yield and dysplasia detection rate than conventional white-light endoscopy and requires a high-quality bowel preparation. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of the ability to perform CE in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

We performed an observational study of patients with IBD undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance examinations with CE. Same-day colonoscopy surveys were used to collect patient and procedural variables. Multivariate logistic regression was used to establish odds ratios of successful completion of CE.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients with IBD were enrolled. We found that patients who did not follow a clear liquid diet before colonoscopy had much lower odds of being able to undergo CE (odds ratio, 0.106; 95% confidence interval, 0.013-0.845; P < .034). Further, we found that previously identified risk factors (older age, history of diabetes mellitus, the timing and split dosing of preparation solution, and procedure time (AM or PM), chronic narcotic use, and history of constipation) for inadequate bowel preparation were not associated with the ability to perform CE.

CONCLUSIONS

Following a clear liquid diet the entire day before the procedure was highly predictive of the ability to perform CE. However, established risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation did not inhibit the ability to perform CE in our population. Endoscopists performing CE should consider recommending that patients follow a clear liquid diet the entire day before their examination.

Which Patient-Related Factors Determine Optimal Bowel Preparation?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Adequate bowel cleansing before colonoscopy is a simple concept but the high rate of inadequate or incomplete bowel cleanliness and its consequences have been the subject of many studies, guidelines, and meta-analysis. The complexity resides in all the factors surrounding preparation intake such as type and regimen of bowel preparation, diets, compliance, and also patient-related factors that all influence quality of the bowel preparation. The purpose of this review is to focus specifically on patient-related factors and their challenges. Patients with lower GI bleeding are excluded from this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient factors that may be associated with a poor bowel preparation were searched for in the literature. With regard to patient's characteristics, higher age, male gender, and socio-economic status (lower income, Medicaid, and lower education) were all associated with higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation. Comorbidities such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), in-patients, body mass index (BMI), cirrhosis, constipation, and neurological condition as well as some pharmacotherapy were also associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Studies identifying predictive patient factors as well as those studying these patients in particular showed variability in the strength of the patient factor associations. Patients taking tricyclic antidepressant, narcotics, and those with neurological conditions were identified to have a stronger association with worse bowel cleanliness. Those can be implemented with the current recommendations of split-dosing. Identifying individual factors that can impact the quality of bowel cleanliness can be challenging. Some have been well-studied in the literature such as age, in-patient status, or constipation and others such as male gender or higher BMI have required more studies to clearly conclude on any possible association. In many studies, simple recommendations like walking 30 min during the preparation, and additional instructions or support have also been added to instructions to improve motility and compliance.

Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 for overall and right-sided colon cleansing: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial versus trisulfate

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

NER1006 is the first 32 fluid ounce (1 L) polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation. This randomized, multicenter, colonoscopist/central reader-blinded phase 3 non-inferiority trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of NER1006 versus trisulfate for bowel cleansing.

METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to receive NER1006 or trisulfate, using evening/morning split-dosing administration. Blinded central readers used the validated Harefield Cleansing Scale to evaluate 2 alternative primary endpoints: overall bowel-cleansing success and high-quality cleansing of the ascending colon/cecum. Secondary endpoints included lesion detection, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) assessment, and adherence. The non-inferiority margin was 10% and the significance threshold was P < .025.

RESULTS

Of 621 patients randomized (NER1006, n=310; trisulfate, n=311), 556 were evaluated for efficacy (NER1006, n=276; trisulfate, n=280). NER1006 achieved non-inferiority versus trisulfate for both primary endpoints of overall bowel-cleansing success (85.1% vs 85.0%; difference, 0.14%; one-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit [LCL], -8.15%; P = .528) and high-quality cleansing of the ascending colon/cecum (35.9% versus 29.3%; difference, 6.58%; LCL, -1.69%; P = .059). BBPS assessments supported overall bowel-cleansing success rates. Lesion detection rates were similar between the groups. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events was 14.9% with NER1006 and 9.4% with trisulfate. Both bowel preparations showed similar overall tolerability and safety profiles. Adherence was very high in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

With evening/morning split dosing, NER1006 was as effective as trisulfate for overall bowel and right-sided colon cleansing. Adverse event rates were slightly higher with NER1006 than trisulfate, but did not compromise tolerability, adherence, or efficacy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02254486.).

Shorter waiting times from education to colonoscopy can improve the quality of bowel preparation: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for an effective and safe colonoscopy. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation according to waiting times from education to colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, investigator-blinded, randomized study was performed from December 2016 to March 2017. Patients were divided into two groups: within 2 weeks (group A, n=64) or more than 2 weeks (group B, n=66) from education about bowel preparation to colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the quality of bowel preparation as assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The secondary outcome was the polyp and adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were enrolled. The total BBPS score was significantly higher in group A (within 2 weeks from education to colonoscopy) than in group B (more than 2 weeks). Total BBPS scores were 8.25}0.97 in group A and 7.75}1.32 in group B (P=.017). The rate of good preparation (BBPS≥8) was higher in group A than in group B (78.1% vs. 59.1%, P=.020). The rates of polyp and adenoma detection were both slightly higher in group A (polyps, 42.2% vs. 38.5%, P=.667; adenoma, 31.2% vs. 22.7%, P=.275). A numerical trend was observed for the slightly superior polyp and adenoma detection rate in group A, but it was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that shorter waiting times from education to colonoscopy can improve the quality of bowel preparation. Ensuring sufficient staff and equipment for endoscopy is one approach to reducing waiting times to colonoscopy. If waiting times can not be reduced, more contact through telephone, e-mail, and text messaging could be used to remind patients about information regarding bowel preparation.

Effect of Low-Volume Split-Dose Purgative on the Quality of Bowel Prep for Colonoscopy on the Hospitalized Patient

Although colon cancer is preventable, it is still the second leading cause of cancer death in both men and women in the United States (). Colonoscopy is as yet the gold standard for colon cancer prevention (). The success of colonoscopy is dependent upon the quality of the bowel prep. The problem addressed in this study was the impact of hospitalization on bowel prep quality. The participants in this study were 54 consecutive inpatients older than 18 years and 52 consecutive outpatients older than 18 years who were scheduled for colonoscopy in the Endoscopy Lab at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. Convenience sampling was used to collect sample data utilizing the Boston Bowel Prep Scale (BBPS). The study group contained 48.1% of the inpatients who had a BBPS of less than seven (out of nine total possible points with a score of nine representing the most optimal prep outcome) compared to 19.2% of the outpatients. Efforts to improve bowel prep palatability, decrease cost, and decrease side effects while improving quality should be continued. Split-dosing is a best practice recommendation. This researcher hypothesized that an intervention in the form of a lower-volume, split-dosage prep would improve the quality of bowel prep in the inpatient population. There was a statistically significant improvement noted with the intervention group in the follow-up study, which indicates potential for improving the quality of bowel prep for screening colonoscopy, thus a possibility for better colon health surveillance.

Split-dose Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: 2 Liters Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid versus Sodium Picosulfate versus Oral Sodium Phosphate Tablets

Background/Aims

Adequate bowel preparation is an essential factor affecting the visibility of colonic mucosa and safety of related therapeutic interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of three bowel preparation agents -2 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEGA), sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (SPMC), and oral sodium phosphate tablet (NaP)- for morning colonoscopy.

Methods

Here, we analyzed the medical records of patients who had taken bowel preparation agents using the split-dose method and undergone colonoscopy in a single hospital. The efficacy of bowel preparation agents was evaluated using the Ottawa bowel preparation assessment tool. The safety and tolerability of the agents were assessed by measuring the renal function and electrolytes prior to and after the procedure as well as by assessing the self-reported questionnaire.

Results

Of the 365 patients (PEGA:163, SPMC: 93, NaP: 109), 98.6% ingested more than 90% of the agents. NaP showed an inferior cleansing efficacy, and serum phosphate elevation was significantly higher in the NaP group. However, the satisfaction score was lowest in the PEGA group. Age (odds ratio [OR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.99, p=0.04) and preparation agents (OR of PEGA versus NaP 5.0, 95% CI 2.28-10.97, p<0.001) (OR of SPMC versus NaP 2.73, 95% CI 1.22-6.08, p=0.01) were independently associated with bowel preparation success.

Conclusions

According to our analysis, NaP showed an inferior cleansing efficacy compared with PEGA and SPMC, which may be attributed to the complex administration method and lower water intake. However, large-volume ingestion remains unsatisfactory for patients. Detailed bowel preparation instructions could enhance bowel cleansing efficacy.

The management of 'hard-to-prepare' colonoscopy patients

Effective bowel cleansing is crucial for high quality colonoscopy. A notable portion of patients still present with low quality bowel preparation prior to their colonoscopy, compromising the overall quality of their colonoscopy. Areas covered: This review focuses on the main strategies that can improve the cleansing quality with a special interest on those clinical conditions that have been associated with a poor bowel preparation quality, such as patients with chronic constipation, history of bowel resection, liver cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. The review provides a practical and evidence-based approach to help clinicians in the management of 'hard-to-prepare' patients. Expert commentary: In the past few years, the quality of colonoscopy has become a hot topic and bowel cleansing is a crucial part of it; however, the approach to patients with an increased risk of poor bowel preparation quality is still not always supported by high-quality evidence, since most of these patients are routinely excluded from the clinical studies. Trials focused on this subgroup of patients are recommended to provide tailored bowel preparation regimens and guarantee high-quality procedures.

Effect of Functional Status on the Quality of Bowel Preparation in Elderly Patients Undergoing Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy

Background/Aims

Optimal bowel preparation is essential for successful screening or for surveillance colonoscopy (SC). Inadequate bowel preparation is associated with older age, the male gender, and the presence of certain comorbidities. However, the association between patients’ functional status and bowel preparation quality has not been studied. We prospectively examined the relationship between functional status, namely, the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) and ambulate, and the quality of bowel preparation in elderly patients undergoing SC.

Methods

Before undergoing SC, 88 elderly patients were surveyed regarding their functional status, specifically regarding their ability to perform ADLs and ambulate a quarter of a mile. Gastroenterologists then determined the quality of the bowel preparation, which was classified as either adequate or inadequate. Then, the frequency of inadequate bowel preparation in patients who did or did not experience difficulty performing ADLs and ambulating was calculated.

Results

Difficulty ambulating (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.83; p<0.001), difficulty performing ADLs (OR, 2.93; p=0.001), and history of diabetes (OR, 2.88; p=0.007) were significant univariate predictors of inadequate bowel preparation. After adjusting for the above variables, only difficulty ambulating (adjusted OR, 5.78; p=0.004) was an independent predictor of inadequate bowel preparation.

Conclusions

Difficulty with ambulation is a strong predictor of inadequate bowel preparation in elderly patients undergoing SC.

Association between bowel habits and quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

The effectiveness of colonoscopy is highly dependent on the quality of bowel preparation. Although many studies have previously evaluated the role of cleansing methods and dosing regimens, few have examined the association between bowel habits and subsequent bowel preparation. Here, we aimed to evaluate the impact of bowel habits on the quality of bowel preparation.A total of 404 patients who underwent a total colonoscopy and completed a personal bowel habit questionnaire at Korea University Hospital between December 2012 and December 2013 were enrolled. The usual stool form of patients was classified into 7 categories according to the Bristol Stool Scale (BSS). The quality of bowel preparation was determined during colonoscopy according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS). Segment scores of ≥3 or total OBPS scores of >7 were defined as poor bowel preparation.Poor bowel preparation was reported in 9.4% of observed colonoscopies. The odds ratio (OR) of poor bowel preparation being associated with infrequent bowel movements (<3/week) was 5.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91-13.1, P = .001). BSS types 1 and 2 tended to have an association with poor bowel preparation, but the association was statistically insignificant (OR: 2.38; 95% CI, 0.90-6.33, P = .082). After adjusting for age, sex, drinking, presence of diabetes mellitus, and bowel preparation regimen, infrequent bowel movement (<3/week) was still significantly associated with poor bowel preparation. When subdividing by colonic segment, it was significantly associated with poor bowel preparation in all segments.Infrequent bowel movement (<3/week) was significantly associated with poor bowel preparation.