High-dose polyethylene glycol-3350 and gatorade solutions for patients with previous inadequate bowel preparations for colonoscopy are safe and effective

BACKGROUND

Inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy remains an issue resulting in lower adenoma detection rates and increased cost. We assessed the efficacy, safety and tolerability of high-dose bowel preparations in subjects who previously had an inadequate colonoscopy preparation.

METHODS

We performed a multi-step prospective trial of high-dose bowel preparations with subjects assigned to the dose higher than their previous inadequate preparation. Step 1: 1.5 times the standard-dose of polyethylene glycol 3350 (PEG, 459 g) and Gatorade; and Step 2: 2.0 times the standard-dose of PEG (612 g) and Gatorade, both were given as extended split-dose preparations. 69 outpatients consumed their preparation before a morning colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was colon cleanliness assessed by the Chicago bowel preparation scale (BPS). Safety was assessed by comparing a baseline basic metabolic panel (BMP) to a post-cleansing BMP. Patients with no history of inadequate colon cleansing who consumed standard doses of PEG (306 g to 357 g) and Gatorade were used as a comparison group. Tolerability of the bowel preparation was assessed using a subject-questionnaire.

RESULTS

When compared to controls consuming standard-dose bowel preparations, subjects consuming high-dose preparations had no statistically significant difference in colon cleanliness as measured by the modified or total Chicago BPS scores or differences in tolerability. Baseline and post-cleaning BMPs were not significantly different other than the BUN falling (p < 0.0001) after the preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

The multi-step high-dose bowel cleansing protocol proved highly efficacious, safe and well tolerated in subjects who previously had an inadequate colonoscopy preparation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02661750.

Bariatric Bypass Surgery Is a Risk Factor for Incomplete Colonoscopy Preparation

OBJECTIVES

Effective colon cancer screening requires adequate bowel preparation. Anecdotal evidence has suggested that patients with a history of bariatric surgery are more likely to have inadequate preparation. This study aims to evaluate the role of bariatric surgery as a predictive risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for consecutive colonoscopies between March 1, 2013, and November 15, 2017. Only the index colonoscopy for each patient within the review period, and those scored using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) were included. Inadequate preparation was defined as any one or more colon segments with a BBPS score of less than two, and patients with a history of bariatric surgery were identified using ICD 9/10 codes. Multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching was used to assess for independent factors predictive of inadequate bowel preparation.

RESULTS

A total of 25,318 colonoscopies were included in the analysis. Two hundred 278 (1.1%) patients had a history of bariatric surgery, among which 171 (61.5%) had a history of bypass surgery and 107 (38.5%) had a history of restrictive surgical procedure. A history of bariatric surgery was predictive of inadequate bowel preparation in both univariate (OR: 2.87, 95% CI: 1.92-4.29, P = 0.0003) and multivariate analysis (OR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.43-3.27, P = 0.0003) after controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. When evaluated separately, a history of bypass surgery was associated with inadequate bowel preparation (aOR: 2.96, 95% CI: 1.86-4.72, P < 0.0001), whereas a history of a restrictive bariatric surgery was not associated with inadequate bowel preparation in multivariate analysis (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.4-2.45, P = 0.971).

CONCLUSIONS

A history of bariatric surgery is an independent risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation. Furthermore, bypass bariatric surgeries had higher rates of inadequate preparation when compared to restrictive bariatric surgeries. Further quality improvement initiatives should be directed at identifying the appropriate bowel preparation regimen in this population.

A multicenter, prospective, inpatient feasibility study to evaluate the use of an intra-colonoscopy cleansing device to optimize colon preparation in hospitalized patients: the REDUCE study

Background

High quality bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy can be difficult to achieve in the inpatient setting. Hospitalized patients are at risk for extended hospital stays and low diagnostic yield due to inadequate bowel preparation. The Pure-Vu System is a novel device intended to fit over existing colonoscopes to improve intra-colonoscopy bowel preparation. The objective of the REDUCE study was to conduct the first inpatient study to evaluate optimization of bowel preparation quality following overnight preparation when using the Pure-Vu System during colonoscopy.

Methods

This multicenter, prospective feasibility study enrolled hospitalized subjects undergoing colonoscopy. Subjects recorded the clarity of their last bowel movement using a 5-point scale prior to colonoscopy. After one night of preparation, all enrolled subjects underwent colonoscopy utilizing the Pure-Vu System. The primary endpoint was improvement of colon cleanliness from baseline to post-cleansing with the Pure-Vu System as assessed by the improvement in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). An exploratory analysis was conducted to assess whether the clarity of the last bowel movement could predict inadequate bowel preparation.

Results

Ninety-four subjects were included. BBPS analyses showed significant improvements in bowel preparation quality across all evaluable colon segments after cleansing with Pure-Vu, including left colon (1.74 vs 2.89; p < 0.0001), transverse colon (1.74 vs 2.91; p < 0.0001), and the right colon (1.41 vs 2.88; p < 0.0001). Prior to Pure-Vu, adequate cleansing (BBPS scores of ≥ 2) were reported in 60%, 62%, and 47% for the left colon, transverse colon, and right colon segments, respectively. After intra-colonoscopy cleansing with the Pure-Vu System, adequate colon preparation was reported in 100%, 99%, and 97% of the left colon, transverse colon, and right colon segments, respectively. Subjects with lower bowel movement clarity scores were more likely to have inadequate bowel preparation prior to cleansing with Pure-Vu.

Conclusions

In this feasibility study, the Pure-Vu System appears to be effective in significantly improving bowel preparation quality in hospitalized subjects undergoing colonoscopy. Clarity of last bowel movement may be useful indicator in predicting poor bowel preparation. Larger studies powered to evaluate clinical outcomes, hospital costs, and blinded BBPS assessments are required to evaluate the significance of these findings.

Trial registration Evaluation of the Bowel Cleansing in Hospitalized Patients Using Pure-Vu System (NCT03503162).

Outcomes of Next-Day Versus Non-next-Day Colonoscopy After an Initial Inadequate Bowel Preparation

BACKGROUND

Inadequate bowel preparation is the most common cause of failed colonoscopy, and repeat failure occurs in more than 20 % of follow-up attempts. Limited data suggest that next-day follow-up may reduce the risk for repeat inadequate preparation.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate differences in prep quality with next-day follow-up after initial inadequate preparation.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Academic center.

PATIENTS

Outpatient screening and surveillance colonoscopies between 7/2002 and 6/2007.

INTERVENTION

Comparison of next-day versus any other day ("non-next-day") repeat colonoscopy outcomes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Aronchick scale, polyp and adenoma detection rates.

RESULTS

Of 20,798 initial colonoscopies, 857 (4.1 %) had inadequate preparation. 460 (54 %) were lost to follow-up. One hundred and fourteen (13 %) had next-day and 283 (33 %) had non-next-day colonoscopy with mean follow-up of 8.8 months. On follow-up examination, 29.8 % of next-day and 23.3 % of non-next-day colonoscopies had inadequate bowel preparation (p = 0.48). The adenoma detection rate for the next-day group improved from 3.5 to 38.6 % on follow-up, compared to 20.5 and 36.8 % in the non-next-day group. There was no significant difference between groups in detection of total adenoma (p = 0.73) or advanced adenomas (p = 0.20) on follow-up examinations.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design, differences in baseline colonoscopy characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The results confirm the need for repeat examination after a colonoscopy with inadequate bowel prep, as there was substantial increase in adenoma detection on follow-up. There were no differences in outcomes between next-day versus non-next-day colonoscopy. These data support repeating after inadequate colonoscopy within 1 year as convenient for patient and physician.

A randomized controlled trial comparing a prepackaged low-residue diet with a restricted diet for colonoscopy preparation: the impact on the results of colonoscopy in adenoma detection

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the clinical utility of a prepackaged low-residue diet (PLD) compared with a restricted diet (RD) for colonoscopic bowel preparation.

METHOD

A prospective randomized controlled trial was carried out with patients undergoing colonoscopy. One hundred patients were randomly assigned to PLD and RD groups. In the RD group, the patients received an information sheet containing acceptable low-residue options and instructions from the medical staff. All patients received 10 ml sodium picosulphate the day before colonoscopy and 1 l of polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-A) on the day of the colonoscopy. If the bowel preparation was not adequate, an additional PEG-A solution was given. The primary outcome was the efficacy of colonic cleansing as rated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The additional amount of PEG-A solution, adenoma detection rate and patient tolerance were assessed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The BBPS score in the PLD group was 7.3 ± 1.7 compared with 6.5 ± 1.7 in the RD group. The quality of bowel preparation was significantly better in the PLD group (P < 0.05). The mean amount of additional PEG-A solution in the PLD group was smaller than in the RD group (293.8 ± 474.8 vs 444.1 ± 625.0 ml), but there was no statistical difference between the two groups. Adenoma detection rates and patient tolerance were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Prepackaged low-residue diets PLD is superior to RD for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy using standard vs reduced doses of sodium phosphate: A single-blind randomized controlled study

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of a colonoscopy preparation that utilizes a reduced dose of sodium phosphate (NaP) and an adjunct.

METHODS: Sixty-two patients requiring screening colonoscopies were studied. Each patient was randomly allocated to receive either 50 NaP tablets (50 g) or 30 NaP tablets (30 g) with 10 mL of 0.75% sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation. NaP was administered at a rate of five tablets (5 g) or three tablets (3 g) every 15 min with 200 mL of water, beginning five to six hours before colonoscopy. The sodium picosulfate was administered with 200 mL of water on the night before the procedure. Both groups were compared in term of the efficacies of colonic cleansing, the time required for completion of the bowel preparation, and acceptability of the preparation.

RESULTS: Sixty patients (n = 30 for each group) were analyzed. The cleansing efficacy tended to be higher in the 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate group as assessed by the mean total Ottawa scale score (50 g NaP 6.70 ± 1. 42 vs 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate 6.17 ± 1.18 P = 0.072). The mean time for bowel preparation tended to be shorter in the 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate group (50 g NaP 189.9 ± 64.0 min vs 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate 161.8 ± 57.6 min, P = 0.065). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the acceptability of the preparations (50 g NaP 83.3% vs 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate 86.7%, P = 0.500). There were no adverse events related to bowel preparation in either of the groups.

CONCLUSION: The colonoscopy preparation that utilized 30 g NaP with sodium picosulfate was comparable to that utilizing 50 g NaP. This novel bowel preparation might be useful before colonoscopy.

Chronic methadone use, poor bowel visualization and failed colonoscopy: A preliminary study

AIM: To examine effects of chronic methadone usage on bowel visualization, preparation, and repeat colonoscopy.

METHODS: In-patient colonoscopy reports from October, 2004 to May, 2009 for methadone dependent (MD) patients were retrospectively evaluated and compared to matched opioid naive controls (C). Strict criteria were applied to exclude patients with risk factors known to cause constipation or gastric dysmotility. Colonoscopy reports of all eligible patients were analyzed for degree of bowel visualization, assessment of bowel preparation (good, fair, or poor), and whether a repeat colonoscopy was required. Bowel visualization was scored on a 4 point scale based on multiple prior studies: excellent = 1, good = 2, fair = 3, or poor = 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Pearson χ² test were used for data analyses. Subgroup analysis included correlation between methadone dose and colonoscopy outcomes. All variables significantly differing between MD and C groups were included in both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. P values were two sided, and < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS: After applying exclusionary criteria, a total of 178 MD patients and 115 C patients underwent a colonoscopy during the designated study period. A total of 67 colonoscopy reports for MD patients and 72 for C were included for data analysis. Age and gender matched controls were randomly selected from this population to serve as controls in a numerically comparable group. The average age for MD patients was 52.2 ± 9.2 years (range: 32-72 years) years compared to 54.6 ± 15.5 years (range: 20-81 years) for C (P = 0.27). Sixty nine percent of patients in MD and 65% in C group were males (P = 0.67). When evaluating colonoscopy reports for bowel visualization, MD patients had significantly greater percentage of solid stool (i.e., poor visualization) compared to C (40.3% vs 6.9%, P < 0.001). Poor bowel preparation (35.8% vs 9.7%, P < 0.001) and need for repeat colonoscopy (32.8% vs 12.5%, P = 0.004) were significantly higher in MD group compared to C, respectively. Under univariate analysis, factors significantly associated with MD group were presence of fecal particulate [odds ratio (OR), 3.89, 95% CI: 1.33-11.36, P = 0.01] and solid stool (OR, 13.5, 95% CI: 4.21-43.31, P < 0.001). Fair (OR, 3.82, 95% CI: 1.63-8.96, P = 0.002) and poor (OR, 8.10, 95% CI: 3.05-21.56, P < 0.001) assessment of bowel preparation were more likely to be associated with MD patients. Requirement for repeat colonoscopy was also significant higher in MD group (OR, 3.42, 95% CI: 1.44-8.13, P = 0.01). In the multivariate analyses, the only variable independently associated with MD group was presence of solid stool (OR, 7.77, 95% CI: 1.66-36.47, P = 0.01). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a general trend towards poorer bowel visualization with higher methadone dosage. ANOVA analysis demonstrated that mean methadone dose associated with presence of solid stool (poor visualization) was significantly higher compared to mean dosage for clean colon (excellent visualization, P = 0.02) or for those with liquid stool only (good visualization, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Methadone dependence is a risk factor for poor bowel visualization and leads to more repeat colonoscopies. More aggressive bowel preparation may be needed in MD patients.