Impact of Multimedia CD Education on the Quality of Colon Preparation; A Single-Blind Randomized Study

Background: Routine bowel preparation instructions are usually given to patients in the form of oral explanations with written instructions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of multimedia training in the form of video CDs on the quality of colon preparation and other related indicators. Methods: 201 outpatients in three referral academic colonoscopy centers were randomly assigned to two groups. The first group (n=100) received supplementary video CD education besides the routine instructions (VCD group). The second group (n=101) received only routine instruction, which included oral and printed instructions (non-VCD group). Results: Complete use of colon cleansing medication was statistically and significantly better in the VCD group (P=0.038). Duration of colonoscopy was shorter in the VCD group (P=0.001), demand for conscious sedation was lesser in the VCD group (P=0.049), and the quality of colon preparation was better in the VCD group (P<0.00). There was no statistically significant difference in pain sensation (P=0.1), cecal intubation rate (P=0.3), and technical difficulty of the colonoscopy (P=0.1) in both groups. Conclusion: Supplementary education in the form of multimedia CD increases the patients' compliance to cleansing mediation consumption, improves the quality of bowel preparation, and decreases the duration of colonoscopy with lesser demands for conscious sedation.

Artificial intelligence and colonoscopy − enhancements and improvements

Artificial intelligence is a technology that processes and analyzes information with reproducibility and accuracy. Its application in medicine, especially in the field of gastroenterology, has great potential to facilitate in diagnosis of various disease states. Currently, the role of artificial intelligence as it pertains to colonoscopy revolves around enhanced polyp detection and characterization. The aim of this article is to review the current and potential future applications of artificial intelligence for enhanced quality of detection for colorectal neoplasia.

Intraprocedural bowel cleansing with the JetPrep cleansing system improves adenoma detection

AIM: To investigate the impact of JetPrep cleansing on adenoma detection rates.

METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, crossover trial, patients were blindly randomized to an intervention arm or a control arm. In accordance with the risk profile for the development of colorectal carcinoma, the study participants were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups. Individuals with just one criterion (age > 70 years, adenoma in medical history, and first-degree relative with colorectal cancer) were regarded as high-risk patients. Bowel preparation was performed in a standardized manner one day before the procedure. Participants in the intervention arm underwent an initial colonoscopy with standard bowel cleansing using a 250-mL syringe followed by a second colonoscopy that included irrigation by the use of the JetPrep cleansing system. The reverse sequence was used in the control arm. The study participants were divided into a high-risk group and a low-risk group according to their respective risk profiles for the development of colorectal carcinoma.

RESULTS: A total of 64 patients (34 men and 30 women) were included in the study; 22 were included in the high-risk group. After randomization, 30 patients were assigned to the control group (group A) and 34 to the intervention group (group B). The average Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was 5.15 ± 2.04. The withdrawal time needed for the first step was significantly longer in group A using the JetPrep system (9.41 ± 3.34 min) compared to group B (7.5 ± 1.92 min). A total of 163 polyps were discovered in 64 study participants who underwent both investigation steps. In group A, 49.4% of the polyps were detected during the step of standard bowel cleansing while the miss rate constituted 50.7%. Group B underwent cleansing with the JetPrep system during the first examination step, and as many as 73.9% of polyps were identified during this step. Thus, the miss rate in group B was a mere 26.1% (P < 0.001). When considering only the right side of the colon, the miss rate in group A during the first examination was 60.6%, in contrast to a miss rate of 26.4% in group B (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: JetPrep is recommended for use during colonoscopy because a better prepared bowel enables a better adenoma detection, particularly in the proximal colon.

Efficacy and acceptability of sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate vs low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for colon cleansing: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

The study compared the efficacy, safety and tolerability of a low-volume picosulphate/magnesium citrate preparation with that of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG + ASC) in a randomized clinical trial (RCT).

METHOD

A multicentre randomized, single-blinded study was designed. Adult outpatients undergoing colonoscopy received either picosulphate/magnesium citrate (Group 1) or PEG + ASC (Group 2). Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and rated as adequate if ≥ 2 in each segment. Patient acceptance, satisfaction and related symptoms were recorded.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and eighty-five patients were included. Preparation was adequate in 75.7% of patients in Group 1 and in 76.5% of patients in Group 2. The mean BBPS scores for the entire colon and for the right colon were comparable between groups. In addition, 97.1% patients in Group 1 and 84.8% in Group 2 reported no or mild discomfort (P < 0.0003) and 97.8% and 83.4% expressed their willingness to repeat the preparation (P < 0.0001). Palatability was better in Group 1, whereas related symptoms occurred more frequently in Group 2. Regardless of which preparation was used, the split regimen was associated with better cleansing compared with the same-day method (OR = 3.39; 95% CI: 1.1-10.4; P = 0.03). Other predictors of poor cleansing were comorbidity, discomfort during preparation and incomplete (< 75%) preparation.

CONCLUSION

Both picosulphate/magnesium citrate and PEG + ASC are effective for bowel preparation. Tolerability and palatability are better for picosulphate/magnesium citrate. A split schedule is associated with higher cleansing quality also for low-volume regimens.

Pros and cons of colonoscopy in management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a frequent gastrointestinal cause of hospitalization, particularly in the elderly, and its incidence appears to be on the rise. Endoscopic and radiographic measures are available for the evaluation and treatment of LGIB including flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, angiography, radionuclide scintigraphy and multi-detector row computed tomography. Although no modality has emerged as the gold standard in the management of LGIB, colonoscopy is the current preferred initial test for the majority of the patients presenting with hematochezia felt to be from a colon source. Colonoscopy has the ability to diagnose all sources of bleeding from the colon and, unlike the radiologic modalities, does not require active bleeding at the time of the examination. In addition, therapeutic interventions such as cautery and endoclips can be applied to achieve hemostasis and prevent recurrent bleeding. Studies suggest that colonoscopy, particularly when performed early in the hospitalization, can decrease hospital length of stay, rebleeding and the need for surgery. However, results from available small trials are conflicting and larger, multicenter studies are needed. Compared to other management options, colonoscopy is a safe procedure with complications reported in less than 2% of patients, including those undergoing urgent examinations. The requirement of bowel preparation (typically 4 or more liters of polyethylene glycol), the logistical complexity of coordinating after-hours colonoscopy, and the low prevalence of stigmata of hemorrhage complicate the use of colonoscopy for LGIB, particularly in urgent situations. This review discusses the above advantages and disadvantages of colonoscopy in the management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding in further detail.

High dose Senna or Poly Ethylene Glycol (PEG) for elective colonoscopy preparation: a prospective randomized investigator-blinded clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of two methods of colon preparation for colon cleansing in a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized investigator-blinded trial, consecutive outpatients indicated for elective colonoscopy were randomized into two groups. Patients in Senna group took 24 tablets of 11 mg Senna in two divided doses 24 hour before colonoscopy. In Poly Ethylene Glycol (PEG) group they solved 4 sachets in 4 liters of water the day before the procedure and were asked to drink 250 ml every 15 minutes. The overall quality of colon cleansing was evaluated using the Aronchick scoring scale. Difficulty of the procedure, patients' tolerance and compliance and adverse events were also evaluated.

RESULTS

322 patients were enrolled in the study. There was no significant difference in the quality of colon cleansing, patients' tolerance, compliance and the difficulty of the procedure between two groups (p > 0.05). The incidence of adverse effects was similar between two groups except for abdominal pain that was more severe in Senna group (p < 0.05) and nausea and vomiting that was more common in PEG group (p < 0.05)

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion we deduce that Senna has the same efficacy and patient's acceptance as Polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) and it could be prescribed as an alternative method for bowel preparation.