Search

Background: The rate of adequate cleansing (ACR) and complete examinations (CR) are key quality indicators in capsule colonoscopy (CC) and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE). Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of bowel preparation protocols regarding ACR and CR. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, search terms regarding colon capsule preparation, publication date from 2006/01, and date of search 2021/12, in six bibliographic databases. Multiple steps of the cleansing protocol were assessed: diet, adjunctive laxatives, purgative solution, use of prokinetic agents, and "booster". The meta-analytical frequency of ACR and CR was estimated, and subgroup analyses performed. Strategies associated with higher ACR and CR were explored using meta-analytical univariable and multivariable regression models. Results: Twenty-six observational studies and five RCTs included (n = 4072 patients). The pooled rate of ACR was 72.5% (95% C.I. 67.8–77.5%; I2 = 92.4%), and the pooled rate of CR was 83.0% (95% C.I. 78.7–87.7%; I2 = 96.5%). The highest ACR were obtained using a low-fibre diet [78.5% (95% C.I. 72.0–85.6%); I2 = 57.0%], adjunctive laxatives [74.7% (95% C.I. 69.8–80.1%); I2 = 85.3%], and split dose < 4L polyethylene glycol (PEG) as purgative [77.5% (95% C.I. 68.4–87.8%); I2 = 47.3%]. The highest CR were observed using routine prokinetics prior to capsule ingestion [84.4% (95% C.I. 79.9–89.2%); I2 = 89.8%], and sodium phosphate (NaP) as "booster" [86.2% (95% C.I. 82.3–90.2%); I2 = 86.8%]. In univariable models, adjunctive laxatives were associated with higher ACR [OR 1.81 (95% C.I. 1.13; 2.90); p = 0.014]. CR was higher with routine prokinetics [OR 1.86 (95% C.I. 1.13; 3.05); p = 0.015] and split-dose PEG purgative [OR 2.03 (95% C.I. 1.01; 4.09), p = 0.048]. Conclusions: Main quality outcomes (ACR, CR) remain suboptimal for CC and PCE. Despite considerable heterogeneity, our results support low-fibre diet, use of adjunctive sennosides, split dose < 4L PEG, and routine prokinetics, while NaP remains the most consistent option as booster. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Backgroud/Aims: Several bowel preparation scales have been developed, but they are variably validated to guide clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the interobserver reliability between internal and external endoscopists using the Harefield Cleaning Scale (HCS). Methods: Data was collected from a study evaluating the efficacy of oral sulfate tablets in patients undergoing colonoscopy. The assessments of bowel cleansing were carried out by four internal endoscopists at the time of the procedure, and colonoscopy video recordings were reviewed independently by three external endoscopists. Interobserver reliability was quantified using Cohen's Kappa coefficient, and scores and grades of each segment were compared between internal and external endoscopist groups. Results: Among 83 colonoscopy videos, interobserver reliability yielded a fair agreement between internal and external endoscopists, with a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.39 (95% CI 0.08–0.70). Successful overall preparation rates (100% vs 98.8%) and high-quality preparation rates (88% vs 94%) were excellent and comparable between the two groups. In contrast, one case of unsuccessful cleansing (grade C) was documented, only in the external group. In addition, the interobserver reliability between internal and external endoscopists comparing each segmental score yielded a slight agreement in the descending colon (0.11, 95% CI − 0.02 to 0.23) and sigmoid colon (0.04, 95% CI − 0.18 to 0.26). Discussion: Interobserver reliability between internal and external endoscopists using the HCS was fair. However, the HCS may be limited as a reliable scale for assessing bowel preparation quality in the left colon, where liquid is mainly retained in the left lateral position. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite regular need for colonoscopy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation (BP) agents is rarely assessed in this population. Assessing BP quality with existing scales may be challenging in CD due to presence of inflammation, bowel resection, and strictures. Aims: To provide recommendations for assessing BP quality in clinical trials for CD using a modified Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness process. Methods: Based on systematic reviews and a literature search, 110 statements relating to BP quality assessment in CD were developed. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists rated the statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate using a 9-point Likert scale. Results: Panelists considered it appropriate that central readers, either alone or with local assessment, score BP quality in clinical trials. Central readers should be trained on scoring BP quality and local endoscopists on performing high-quality video recording. Both endoscope insertion and withdrawal phases should be reviewed to score BP quality in each colonic segment and segments should align with endoscopic disease activity indices. The Harefield Cleansing Scale and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale were considered appropriate. The final score should be calculated as the average of all visualized segments. Both total and worst segment scores should also be assessed. Conclusions: We developed a framework for assessing BP quality in patients with CD based on expert feedback. This framework could support the development or refinement of BP quality scales and the integration of BP quality assessment in future CD studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Development of bowel preparation products has been based upon colon cleansing rating by a local endoscopist. It is unclear how bowel preparation scales perform when centrally evaluated. Aims: To evaluate the reliability of bowel preparation quality scales when assessed by central readers. Methods: Four central readers evaluated 52 videos in triplicate, 2 weeks apart, during the entire endoscopic procedure (insertion/withdrawal of the colonoscope) and exclusively on colonoscope withdrawal using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), Chicago Bowel Preparation scale, Harefield Cleansing Scale, Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPQS), Aronchick score, a visual analogue scale, and additional items proposed in a modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness process. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) for inter-rater reliability of the quality scales ranged from 0.51 to 0.65 (consistent with moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability) during the entire procedure. Corresponding intraclass correlation coefficients for intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 (consistent with substantial intra-rater reliability). Reliability was highest in the right colon and lowest in the left colon. No differences were observed in reliability when assessed for the procedure overall (insertion/withdrawal) relative to assessment on withdrawal alone. Conclusion: All five bowel preparation quality scales had moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability. Panelists considered the Aronchick score too simplistic for clinical trials and recognized that assessment of residual fluid in the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale was not amenable to central assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: High-quality intestinal preparation could promote intestinal cleanliness and lead to more accurate diagnosis, which patients will benefit from. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of walking exercise and intestinal cleansing interval in bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Methods: A randomized controlled single blind study was conducted during August 2021 to February 2022. Patients requiring colonoscopy were randomly divided into three groups: 0 step, 5000 steps or 10,000 steps during the intestinal preparation. Participants took the same intestinal cleansing drugs 4–6 h prior to the procedure: 2L-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG). Results: A total of 300 patients were enrolled in the experiment (100 patients per group), and the baseline information of the three groups was close. The BBPS of right (0-step group vs 5,000-step group vs 10,000-step group: 1.78 ± 0.65 vs 1.88 ± 0.54 vs 2.36 ± 0.69, p < 0.001), transverse (0-step group vs 5,000-step group vs 10,000-step group: 2.09 ± 0.78 vs 2.18 ± 0.61 vs 2.59 ± 0.71, p < 0.001) and left (0-step group vs 5,000-step group vs 10,000-step group: 2.01 ± 0.91 vs 2.24 ± 0.59 vs 2.51 ± 0.60, p < 0.001) colon in 10,000-step group were significantly higher than others, respectively. And we also drew the same conclusion in the aspect of ADR. The adverse events and patients' satisfaction had no differences between the two groups. Moreover, intestinal cleansing interval (< 5.12 h) was only effective in BBPS of right colon (p < 0.001) and left colon (p = 0.039). Conclusions: This study suggested that participants took 10,000-step walking exercise and took PEG 5.12 h prior to the procedure were effective in routine pre-procedure cleanout for standard colonoscopy. Name of Registry: Effect of starting time of bowel cleansing and walking exercise after bowel cleansing on bowel preparation: A prospective randomized controlled study. Registration Number: ChiCTR2100049214. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor bowel preparation is commonly observed in inpatients undergoing colonoscopy, particularly those with higher risks for inadequate bowel preparation. Aims: The objective of this study was to determine whether personalized bowel preparation regimens combined with face-to-face instruction (FFI) could improve the quality of bowel preparation for inpatient. Methods: In this endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 320 inpatients were enrolled and randomly allocated (1:1) to the control and intervention groups. The intervention group received FFI and personalized bowel preparation regimens, while the control group received the routine bowel preparation regimen and education. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation rate. Secondary outcomes included rates of procedure-related adverse events, incorrect diet restriction and laxative intake, etc. Results: The adequate bowel preparation rate in the intervention group was significantly higher compared to control group [intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis: 70.0% vs 51.3%, P < 0.001; per-protocol (PP) analysis: 79.4% vs 58.6%, P < 0.001]. Bowel cleanliness was significantly improved in high-risk inpatients (ITT analysis: 65% vs 44.6%, P = 0.004; PP analysis: 73.0% vs 51.7%, P = 0.004) and in low-risk inpatients (ITT analysis: 80% vs 62.7%, P = 0.037; PP analysis: 92.3% vs 69.8%, P = 0.003). There were no significant differences between two groups regarding procedure-related adverse events. Conclusions: Personalized bowel preparation regimens combined with FFI improve the rate of adequate bowel preparation, especially for patients with high-risk factors. As such, inpatients could benefit from this novel approach for better bowel preparation to ultimately improve the quality of colonoscopies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current strategies to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) vary considerably regarding safety, invasiveness, and patient satisfaction. A known deterrent for patients is the required bowel cleansing for colonoscopy. A new colon-scan capsule system is a unique preparation-free approach that provides structural information on colonic mucosa intended for detection of colorectal polyps and masses. Aims: The aim of this study was to determine safety and patient satisfaction with the colon-scan capsule. Methods: Prospective single-arm pilot study conducted at two tertiary care centers. Patients with a pre-scheduled colonoscopy for CRC screening or surveillance were included. Patients participating in this study underwent the colon-scan capsule and colonoscopy. Safety was defined by the occurrence of procedure or device-related adverse events. Satisfaction was based on survey questionnaires using a scoring system 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Patient satisfaction with the colon-scan capsule was compared to colonoscopy. Results: Forty patients were included (52.9 [5.7] years; 64.1% females). There were no serious adverse events and no occurrences of capsule retention. The most common (12.5%) complaint was self-limiting abdominal cramping. Satisfaction questionnaires were completed by more than 87% of patients, with patients likely to recommend the capsule (score 4.1 [1.03]) compared to colonoscopy (score 2.8 [1.2]), p = 0.001. Conclusions: The new prepless colon-scan capsule system is an innovative, minimally invasive technology with demonstrated safety and high patient satisfaction. A multicenter pivotal study is planned to validate the performance, safety, and accuracy of polyp detection using the capsule system in comparison with colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) is a small-volume bowel cleansing agent with similar efficacy to and better tolerability than polyethylene glycol. However, we found no data on which SPMC preparation (same-day vs. split-dose) provides better bowel cleansing efficacy for afternoon colonoscopy. Aims: To compare bowel cleansing efficacy of different timing of the regimen. Methods: This randomized, single-center, endoscopist-blinded, noninferior study compared same-day and split-dose SPMC preparations for afternoon colonoscopy in 101 and 96 patients, respectively. We also included a prospective observation group of 100 patients receiving morning colonoscopy to compare bowel preparation between morning and afternoon colonoscopies. Bowel cleansing efficacy was then evaluated by the Aronchick Scale, Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and the Bubble Scale. Results: Same-day and split-dose preparations were similar in efficacy in all four scales. In the Aronchick Scale, the success rate (excellent and good cleanliness) was higher in same-day preparation than in split-dose preparation (100% vs. 92.8%). The same-day preparation also obtained a better OBPS score (1.4 vs. 2.1), but BBPS showed no difference between such groups (7.7 vs. 7.4). Conclusion: Same-day preparation with SPMC is not inferior to split-dose preparation for afternoon colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inadequate bowel preparation undermines the quality of colonoscopy, but patients likely to be affected are difficult to identify beforehand. Aims: This study aimed to develop, validate, and compare prediction models for bowel preparation inadequacy using conventional logistic regression (LR) and random forest machine learning (RFML). Methods: We created a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy at a single VA medical center between January 2012 and October 2015. Candidate predictor variables were chosen after a literature review. We extracted all available predictor variables from the electronic medical record, and bowel preparation from the endoscopy database. The data were split into 70% training and 30% validation sets. Multivariable LR and RFML were used to predict preparation inadequacy as a dichotomous outcome. Results: The cohort included 6,885 Veterans, of whom 964 (14%) had inadequate preparation. Using LR, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the validation cohort was 0.66 (95% CI 0.62, 0.69) and the Brier score, in which a lower score indicates better performance, was 0.11. Using RFML, the AUC for the validation cohort was 0.61 (95% CI 0.58, 0.65) and the Brier score was 0.12. Conclusions: LR and RFML had similar performance in predicting bowel preparation, which was modest and likely insufficient for use in practice. Future research is needed to identify additional predictor variables and to test other machine learning algorithms. At present, endoscopy units should focus on universal strategies to enhance preparation adequacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Inadequate bowel preparation leads to poor outcomes in colonoscopy. Prior investigations have demonstrated improved bowel preparation with pre-procedural educational videos. We aimed to determine whether an interactive, online educational video could improve bowel preparation scores in an outpatient population. Methods: We performed a prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial at our hospital-based outpatient endoscopy center. Eligible patients were randomized to two groups. Both groups received standard verbal and written instructions, while the intervention group also received access to an interactive, online video. The primary outcome was improvement in the bowel preparation scores graded using the Boston bowel prep score (BBPS). Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate, total number of polyps detected, patient satisfaction, pre-procedure anxiety, and complication rates. Results: The difference in BBPS in the intervention group (8) compared to the control group (7.6) did not meet statistical significance in our primary outcome of improvement in BBPS (p = 0.076). However, on subgroup analysis, there was a statistically significant improvement in BBPS in the intervention group among African Americans (p = 0.007) and patients older than 65 (p = 0.026). Those in the intervention arm rated pre-procedural materials "very easy" to understand significantly more often than in the control arm (p = 0.018). Conclusions: Use of an interactive, online educational video for bowel preparation did not lead to improvement in overall BBPS. However, among patients at higher risk for inadequate bowel preparation, such as African Americans and elderly patients, there may be a benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Patients often refer to bowel preparation and associated dietary restrictions as the greatest deterrents to having a colonoscopy completed or performed. Large studies comparing a low-residue diet (LRD) and a clear liquid diet (CLD) are still limited. The aim of this study is to compare LRD and CLD with regard to bowel preparation quality, tolerance, and satisfaction among a diverse patient population. Methods: This study is a dual-center, randomized, single-blinded, prospective trial involving adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at the University of California Irvine Medical Center and an affiliated Veterans Administration hospital. Patients were randomized to consume either a CLD or a planned LRD for the full day prior to colonoscopy. Both groups consumed 4L split-dosed PEG-ELS. The adequacy of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS). Adequate preparation was defined as a BBPS ≥ 6 with no individual segment less than a score of 2. Hunger and fatigue pre - and post-procedure were graded on a ten-point scale. Nausea, vomiting, bloating, abdominal cramping, overall discomfort, satisfaction with the diet, willingness to repeat the same preparation and overall experience were assessed. Results: A total of 195 subjects who underwent colonoscopy from October 2014 to October 2017 were included. The mean BBPS for the LRD and CLD groups was 8.38 and 7.93, respectively (p = 0.1). There was a significantly higher number of adequate preparations in the LRD group compared to CLD (p = 0.05). Evening hunger scores just before starting the bowel preparation were significantly lower in the LRD than the CLD group, 2.81 versus 5.97, respectively (p = 0.006). Subjects in the LRD group showed significantly less nausea (p = 0.047) and bloating (p = 0.04). Symptom scores for vomiting, abdominal cramping, and overall discomfort were similar between the groups. Satisfaction with diet was significantly higher in the LRD group than CLD, 72% versus 37.66%, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall colonoscopy experience and the satisfaction with the preparation itself were also better reported in the LRD group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). Conclusions: This study, which included a diverse group of patients, demonstrated that patients using a LRD before colonoscopy achieve a bowel preparation quality that is superior to patients on a CLD restriction. This study shows that a low-residue diet improves patient satisfaction and results in significantly better tolerability of bowel preparation. As a less restrictive dietary regimen, the low-residue diet may help improve patient participation in colorectal cancer screening programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Constipation is a common reason of poor bowel preparation, which negatively influences the quality of colonoscopy. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in constipated patients remain unclear.Aims: This study aimed to investigate the high-risk factors that might influence the quality of bowel preparation in patients with functional constipation.Methods: Consecutive patients with functional constipation who underwent colonoscopy between June 2016 and April 2017 were enrolled. A standard split dose of 4 l polyethylene glycol was used for bowel preparation. Patient- and procedure-related parameters were recorded. The primary outcome was an adequate rate of bowel preparation. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation were screened by multivariate logistic regression analysis.Results: A total of 199 patients were included. Adequate bowel preparation was found in 62.8% (125/199) of patients. At multivariate analysis, Bristol stool form scale (BSFS) 1 [odds ratio (OR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-5.90; P = 0.011], rectal pain score during defecation < 2 (OR 4.14, 95% CI 1.22-13.97; P = 0.022), and starting-to-defecation interval ≥ 4 h (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.34-10.91; P = 0.012) were risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in patients with constipation. For patients with no, 1, 2, or 3 risk factors, the rates of inadequate bowel preparation were 11%, 23%, 49%, and 65%, respectively.Conclusions: With the standard preparation regime, > 1/3 of patients with functional constipation had inadequate bowel cleansing. BSFS 1, rectal pain score during defecation < 2, and starting-to-defecation interval ≥ 4 h were identified as independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in constipated patients.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02842411. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colonic bubbles obscure the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy following bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc). Simethicone is used to enhance visualization during colonoscopy. We aimed to determine the optimal timing of simethicone addition to improve bowel preparation using PEG-Asc.Methods: This prospective, randomized study enrolled patients undergoing elective colonoscopy from April 2017 to January 2018. They were randomly assigned to one of the following three groups: PEG-Asc only (control) or simethicone addition in the morning on the day of colonoscopy (PEG-S1) or in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy (PEG-S2). The primary outcome was the quality of colon cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and diminutive (≤ 5 mm) ADR.Results: In total, 240 patients were randomly allocated to the three groups; six patients were withdrawn. Of the 234 patients evaluated, 78, 79, and 77 were allocated to the control, PEG-S1, and PEG-S2 groups, respectively. The bubble scores of all colonic segments were lowest in the PEG-S2 group. There was no significant difference in ADR or PDR among the three groups. However, the diminutive ADR was significantly higher in the PEG-S2 group compared to the other two groups (control 5.1% vs. PEG-S1 8.9% vs. PEG-S2 20.8%; P = 0.009).Conclusion: Addition of simethicone to PEG-Asc at the optimal time prevents the formation of air bubbles and so improves the quality of bowel preparation, especially enhancing diminutive ADR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diabetes and chronic narcotic use negatively affect the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy.Aim: To investigate whether narcotic use and diabetes have an additive negative impact on bowel preparation.Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 2841 patients (mean age 61 ± 10.2; 94% male) who received outpatient colonoscopies at our Veterans Affairs Medical Center between June 2012 and December 2014. We collected information related to demographics, body mass index, indications, and medical/surgical history (diabetes mellitus, stroke, cirrhosis, dementia, constipation, hypothyroidism, and use of narcotics or antidepressants/anxiolytics for more than three months). Patients were classified into four groups: (1) diabetics on narcotics, (2) diabetics only, (3) on narcotics only, and (4) neither diabetic nor using narcotics. Quality of the bowel preparation was scored using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and categorized as either excellent (BBPS ≥7, with no individual segment scoring <2) or not excellent (BBPS <7). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the combined impact of narcotic use and diabetes on bowel preparation.Results: Bowel preparation quality was excellent in 49%. Thirty-eight percent of patients with diabetes who were using narcotics (adjusted OR 0.6, CI [0.4, 0.8]) achieved excellent bowel preparation compared with 44% (adjusted OR 0.7, CI [0.6, 0.9]) of patients on narcotics only, 48% (adjusted OR 0.8, CI [0.7, 0.9]) of diabetics only, and 54% of patients with neither condition.Conclusion: Concomitant narcotic use and diabetes have a compounding effect on the quality of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A same-day low-volume 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy was developed to improve patients' compliance. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this regimen especially for the elderly and patients with renal dysfunction.Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy in our center from November 2014 to September 2015 were included. Patients undertook a low-residue diet with 10 mL sodium picosulfate 1 day before colonoscopy. Subsequently, they had 1 L low-volume PEG (MoviPrep) and 0.5 L water 4 h before the examination. Clinical outcomes, including cleansing level using the Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS), in the elderly and special-elderly (65-79 and ≥80 years old) were analyzed and compared with the non-elderly (18-64 years old). Additionally, patients with renal dysfunction were analyzed with respect to both complications and changes in blood parameters.Results: A total of 5427 patients (mean age: 64.5 ± 13.8) were analyzed. The rate of BBPS ≥ 6 in the elderly (2761 patients), special-elderly (565 patients), and non-elderly (2101 patients) was 94.1, 91.8, and 94.6 %, respectively. In the special-elderly, the rate of renal dysfunction was 14.8 %, and no severe complications were detected after colonoscopy. Additionally, there were no severe complications in 86 patients with renal dysfunction, though elevation of hematocrit was shown after intake of 1 L PEG (before, 36.7 ± 6.1 vs. after, 39.0 ± 5.7, P = 0.006).Conclusions: Our study shows the safety and efficacy of same-day low-volume 1 L PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy for the elderly and patients with renal dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solutions is the gold standard for bowel preparation. However, PEG use might be associated with the risk of acute kidney injury.Aims: We aimed to compare the safety of 2 L PEG plus ascorbic acid (AA) versus 4 L PEG.Methods: Health examinees that underwent colonoscopy and blood tests on the same day at our center were included in this retrospective study. All subjects were prescribed either 2 L PEG plus AA or 4 L PEG for the bowel preparation prior to the colonoscopy. The incidences of electrolyte imbalance and renal impairment after colonic preparation were investigated. Renal impairment was determined if the subject's estimated glomerular filtration rate was measured less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2.Results: Of the 29,789 cases, 14,790 received 2 L PEG plus AA (group A) and 14,999 received 4 L PEG (group B) for colonic preparation. Renal impairment occurred more commonly in group A (n = 467, 3.2 %) than in group B (n = 189, 1.3 %). Electrolyte changes such as hypernatremia and hyperkalemia were more common in group A than group B, whereas hyponatremia, hypokalemia, and hypophosphatemia were more common in group B than group A. Old age, male sex, and the use of 2 L PEG plus AA were independent risk factors for renal impairment.Conclusions: The evidence strongly suggests that acute kidney injury is more likely to occur when 2 L PEG plus AA is used for the bowel preparation than when 4 L PEG is used.Clinical Trial Registration Number: KCT0001703. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colonoscopy may be one of the most frequent elective procedures in older adults and is associated with a low occurrence of complications. However, reduction of risks attributable to the bowel preparation may be achieved with the use of effective and safer products.Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with SUPREP(®) [oral sulfate solution (OSS)] and other common prescription bowel preparations (non-OSS).Methods: This real-world, observational study used de-identified health insurance claims and laboratory results to identify TEAEs in the 3 months following screening colonoscopy in adults with a prescription for a bowel preparation in the prior 60 days. The unadjusted and adjusted (controlling for patient risk factors) cumulative incidences of TEAEs were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Poisson regression, respectively.Results: Among patients ≥45 years, the overall cumulative incidence was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the OSS cohort than in the non-OSS cohort (unadjusted: 2.31 vs. 2.89 %; adjusted: 1.61 vs. 1.95 %), with significantly lower acute cardiac conditions (1.56 vs. 1.90 %; p < 0.001), renal failure/other serious renal diseases (OSS: 0.21 %, non-OSS: 0.32 %; p < 0.001), and serum electrolyte abnormalities (OSS: 0.39 %, non-OSS: 0.49 %; p = 0.017). There were no significant differences between cohorts in death, seizure disorders, aggravation of gout, and ischemic colitis. Results were similar in the adjusted cumulative incidences.Conclusions: In actual use, the overall cumulative incidence of TEAEs was significantly lower in the OSS cohort, demonstrating that OSS is as safe as, or possibly safer than, non-OSS prescription bowel preparations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: Adequate bowel preparation is essential to safe and effective inpatient colonoscopy. Predictors of poor inpatient colonoscopy preparation and the economic impacts of inadequate inpatient preparations are not defined. The aims of this study were to (1) determine risk factors for inadequate inpatient bowel preparations, and (2) examine the association between inadequate inpatient bowel preparation and hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs.Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy preparation over 12 months (1/1/2013-12/31/2013).Results: Of 524 identified patients, 22.3% had an inadequate preparation. A multiple logistic regression model identified the following potential predictors of inadequate bowel preparation: lower income (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.04, 1.22), opiate or tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) use (OR 1.55; 0.98, 2.46), and afternoon colonoscopy (OR 1.66; 1.07, 2.59); as well as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3 (OR 1.15; 1.05, 1.25) and symptoms of nausea/vomiting (OR 1.14; 1.04, 1.25) when a fair preparation was considered inadequate. Inadequate bowel preparation was associated with significantly increased hospital LOS (model relative mean estimate 1.25; 95% CI 1.03, 1.51) and hospital costs (estimate 1.31; 1.03, 1.67) when compared to adequate preparations.Conclusions: The rate of inadequate inpatient bowel preparations is high and associated with a significant increase in hospital LOS and costs. We identified five potential predictors of inadequate inpatient preparation: lower socioeconomic class, opiate/TCA use, afternoon colonoscopies, ASA class ≥3, and pre-preparation nausea/vomiting; these data should guide future initiatives to improve the quality of inpatient bowel preparations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: All present guidelines regarding surveillance intervals after index colonoscopy are based on optimal bowel preparation. However, the appropriate timing of repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation is not clear.Aims: To determine the appropriate timing of repeat colonoscopy following index colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation.Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent colonoscopy over 5 years were retrospectively analyzed. Index colonoscopy was defined as the first colonoscopy in patients who underwent the procedure at least twice during the study period. Bowel preparation quality was classified as optimal, fair, or poor.Results: The overall adenoma detection rate was 39.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.0-40.1%), but the detection rate depended significantly on bowel preparation quality (p < 0.001). The adenoma miss rate (AMR) was significant after poor (69.6%) than after optimal (27.3%) and fair (48.1%) preparation (p < 0.001). At surveillance intervals ≤2 years, the odds ratio (OR) for AMR was significantly higher for poor (OR 6.25; 95% CI, 3.76-11.83) and fair (OR 3.67; 95% CI, 2.19-6.16) preparation relative to optimal preparation; however, no difference was observed at surveillance intervals >2 years.Conclusions: Bowel preparation quality significantly affects AMR. Colonoscopy should be repeated within 2 years in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation at index colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is unclear whether the quality of bowel preparation affects colonoscopic detection of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms (NP-CRNs). Aim: To evaluate the impact of bowel-cleansing quality on detection of NP-CRNs. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of asymptomatic screening colonoscopy cases after standardized bowel preparation at an academic teaching hospital between June 2011 and May 2013. Primary outcome was a comparison of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of non-polypoid morphology according to quality of bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes included detection prevalence of non-polypoid adenomas. Results: Of the enrolled 6097 screening examinations, the preparation quality was rated as adequate (excellent or good) in 5224 (85.7 %), fair in 615 (10.1 %), and poor in 258 (4.2 %) patients. The prevalence of NP-CRNs was 40.5 % (1962/4847) of all CRNs. The overall ADR of non-polypoid morphology was 12.3 % (747/6097) of all colonoscopies, but it significantly differed among participating endoscopists (all P < 0.05). The ADR of non-polypoid morphology was significantly lower with fair- or poor-quality preparation, versus adequate-quality preparation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.55, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.75; aOR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.30-0.79, respectively). Poor-quality preparation was also associated with impaired detection of polypoid, proximal colon, and sub-centimeter adenomas (all P < 0.05). Conclusions: Suboptimal (fair or poor) bowel preparation significantly impairs colonoscopic detection of NP-CRNs. Given that the prevalence of NP-CRNs is substantial in our average-risk screening cohort, ongoing efforts to improve the preparation quality are practically valuable in increasing the detection of NP-CRNs, thereby improving the efficacy of screening colonoscopies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic procedures are frequently performed on patients chronically on opioids, raising concerns about the safety and efficacy of conventional sedation. Aims: We hypothesized that chronic opioid use is associated with longer procedure times, higher dosages of sedation medications, and an increase in adverse effects. Methods: This is a retrospective review from June 2012 to June 2013. Patients on chronic opioids (opioids use ≥12 weeks) were compared to randomly selected patients matched for age, race, and sex. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors that were independently predictive of longer procedure times. Results: Patients on chronic opioids required higher doses of fentanyl (122.0 ± 45.3 vs. 105.8 ± 47.2 µg; P < 0.0001) and midazolam (5.3 ± 5.3 vs. 4.4 ± 2 mg; P = 0.0037) and were more likely to receive diphenhydramine (42.8 vs. 22.6 %; P < 0.001). The induction period (11.3 ± 8.8 vs. 7.5 ± 4.0 min), duration of procedure (39.1 ± 17.5 vs. 33.4 ± 14.1 min), and recovery times (38.7 ± 15.3 vs. 33.8 ± 12.1 min) were significantly longer for patients on chronic opioids. In the multivariate regression analysis, opioid use was an independent predictor of longer procedure duration ( P < 0.05). Hypotensive episodes did not differ between groups (2.8 vs. 2.7 %; P = 0.8). However, patients on chronic opioids experienced more pain (13.4 vs. 5.9 %; P 0.001) and hypertensive episodes (8.1 vs. 2.8 %; P 0.002). Conclusion: Patients on chronic opioids represent a high-risk population with longer procedural times and more discomfort, despite higher dosages of sedative agents. Prospective studies are required to define the risks and benefits of more costly alternative sedation strategies for patients on chronic opioids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transenteral (TE) administration of a bowel cleanser prior to colonoscopy avoids the discomfort associated with drinking a large volume of unpalatable cleanser. Aim: To explore patient comfort, preference for future colonoscopy, the efficacy and adverse events associated with TE bowel preparation. Methods: Bowel preparation is traditionally practised using polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid (ASC), which was the treatment used in the control group (peroral group; PO group). In the study group (TE group), PEG + ASC were administered directly to the third portion of the duodenum through a scope immediately after completing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Results: A higher proportion of subjects in the TE group graded their degree of comfort as very or rather comfortable (28.4 % in the PO group, 65.1 % in the TE group; p = 0.000) and had greater preference for future colonoscopy (69.6 % in the PO group, 82.5 % in the TE group; p = 0.030), compared with the PO group. The TE group had non-inferiority in efficacy compared with the PO group (non-inferiority margin −15 %; lower limit of 95 % confidence interval for difference between success rates −6.4 %, when using the Aronchick Scale, and −7.1 % when using the Ottawa Scale). Nausea or vomiting were more prevalent during preparation in the PO group (46.1 vs. 17.5 %; p = 0.000), and dizziness was more common in the TE group (0 vs. 12.6 %; p = 0.000). Conclusions: TE preparation was found to be more comfortable than the traditional peroral method and not inferior in efficacy. The adverse events rate was acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimal colon-cleansing method after failure of bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy has not been established. Aims: We aimed to compare BP rescue methods after failed initial BP and to identify risk factors for rescue BP failure. Methods: Eighty-five patients with BP failure after 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) ingestion were prospectively enrolled from March 2008 to March 2012. A second colonoscopy was performed either on the same day after ingestion of another 2 L PEG (group A) or 1 week later after ingestion of 4 L PEG plus 20 mg oral bisacodyl (group B). Differences between groups in terms of BP quality and risk factors for a poor BP on the second colonoscopy were investigated. Results: Median patient age was 59 years, 45 were male (52.9 %), and 17 (20 %) had poor BP on the second colonoscopy. For group B, the multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (OR) for poor BP on the second colonoscopy relative to group A was 0.68 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.16-2.95). Adequately ingested PEG during the initial colonoscopy was associated with poor BP on the second colonoscopy (OR 4.05; 95 % CI 1.04-15.75). The two groups had similar patient discomfort rates during the second BP. Conclusions: The two groups did not differ in rescue BP failure rate. Initial BP failure after adequate consumption of 4 L PEG may be a risk factor for rescue BP failure. A stricter BP regimen should be considered for these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: It has been suggested that bowel preparation quality may influence decision-making about appropriate follow-up interval after screening colonoscopy. We sought: (1) to assess physician recommendations for timing of subsequent colonoscopy in average-risk patients with inadequate bowel preparation on initial screening, and (2) to measure the association between physician recommendations and patient adherence to repeat colonoscopy. Methods: Patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy from 2004 to 2009 found to have inadequate bowel preparation were identified. Physician recommendations for timing of subsequent colonoscopy and patient adherence to repeat colonoscopy were assessed through examination of endoscopy records. Data from repeat colonoscopies were collected through August 2010. Results: There were 373 patients with inadequate bowel preparation on initial screening colonoscopy. There was a wide range of physician recommendations for timing of repeat colonoscopy: next day (4.6 % of patients), 2 days to 6 months (9.9 %), 7 months to 1 year (34.0 %), 2-5 years (38.3 %), 6-10 years (5.1 %), and timing not specified (8.0 %). Physicians were significantly more likely to recommend repeat colonoscopy within 1 year if any polyps were detected (OR = 2.2, p = 0.001). Patients instructed to have next day follow-up were significantly more likely to adhere to the recommendation compared to patients who were instructed to return after longer intervals (OR 4.4, p = 0.005). Conclusions: Patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy were subject to a wide range of physician recommendations for follow-up. Patient adherence to physician recommendations was significantly higher when repeat colonoscopy was recommended the next day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are limited data on recommendations and adherence to complete colon evaluation (CCE) after incomplete colonoscopy (IC). Aims: Our objectives were to (1) identify recommendations and adherence to recommendations after IC, (2) determine the diagnostic yield of CCE after IC, and (3) determine the effect of an IC referral program on recommendations for CCE. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of IC procedures at a teaching hospital over two time periods (January 1 to May 1 2004 and July 1 to November 1 2010). A referral process for repeat colonoscopy after IC was instituted in April 2009. Outcomes included (1) recommendations (2) adherence, and (3) yield of CCE after IC. Results: A total of 222 patients underwent at least one IC (overall rate of 2.5 %). In 120 patients (54.1 %), CCE was recommended within 1 year; the rate did not change from 2004 to 2010. Patients with IC due to poor preparation were more likely to have specific CCE recommendations (85.5 vs. 72.2 %, P = 0.03) and recommendations of endoscopic follow-up (76.3 vs. 10.4 %, P < 0.0001) than those with IC due to difficult anatomy. When IC was due to difficult colonoscopy, there was increase in endoscopic follow-up recommended (16.3 vs. 2.8 %, P = 0.01) in 2010 compared to 2004. Adherence to recommendations was similar regardless of modality recommended, inpatient/outpatient status, polyps on initial exam, or extent of initial exam. Polyp detection rate was greater utilizing colonoscopy than barium enema (34.3 vs. 3.6 %, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: There is a lack of consensus in management strategies for patients after IC. Implementation of a referral program has had minimal impact on provider recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Study Aims: Bowel-cleansing studies are frequently underpowered, poorly designed, and with subjective assessments. Consensus on tolerability of the bowel-cleansing agents is thus lacking. This study developed and validated a bowel-preparation tolerability questionnaire and used it to assess the tolerability of three bowel-cleansing agents, sodium phosphate (NaP), polyethylene glycol (PEG), and sodium picosulphate (Pico), in a prospective randomized single-blinded trial of ambulatory patients. Patients and Methods: The bowel-preparation tolerability questionnaire was validated in 125 consecutive patients and then bowel-preparation agent tolerability was assessed in 634 patients in a prospective randomized single-blinded trial. Results: The questionnaire's internal consistency was satisfactory with good to excellent 'test-retest' reliability for aggregate tolerability and visual analogue scores. Validity assessment confirmed it as reliable and accurate. Of 634 patients, 97.8 % took >75 % of the allocated preparation and 98.9 % completed the questionnaire. Overall, Pico was better tolerated than PEG ( p < 0.001) and NaP ( p < 0.001). NaP was better tolerated than PEG ( p < 0.001). Regardless of the bowel-preparation agent used, males tolerated them better than females ( p = 0.009) as did patients having their procedure in the AM. Older patients, however, tolerated all preparations better than younger patients ( p = 0.006). Conclusions: This study used the first validated bowel-preparation tolerability questionnaire and identified that age, sex, and procedure time all impacted tolerability. Overall, Pico was best tolerated, but PEG's tolerability in patients ≥60 years was equal to that of Pico and NaP, suggesting that PEG can be recommended for older patients to avoid the electrolyte disturbances associated with the osmotic preparations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Study Aims: To obtain an adequate view of the whole small intestine during capsule endoscopy (CE) a clear liquid diet and overnight fasting is recommended. However, intestinal content can hamper vision in spite of these measures. Our aim was to evaluate tolerance and degree of intestinal cleanliness during CE following three types of bowel preparation.Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study. Two-hundred ninety-one patients underwent one of the following preparations: 4 L of clear liquids (CL) (group A; 92 patients); 90 mL of aqueous sodium phosphate (group B; 89 patients); or 4 L of a polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (group C; 92 patients). The degree of cleanliness of the small bowel was classified by blinded examiners according to four categories (excellent, good, fair or poor). The degree of patient satisfaction, gastric and small bowel transit times, and diagnostic yield were measured.Results: The degree of cleanliness did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.496). Interobserver concordance was fair (k = 0.38). No significant differences were detected between the diagnostic yields of the CE (P = 0.601). Gastric transit time was 35.7 ± 3.7 min (group A), 46.1 ± 8.6 min (group B) and 34.6 ± 5.0 min (group C) (P = 0.417). Small-intestinal transit time was 276.9 ± 10.7 min (group A), 249.7 ± 13.1 min (group B) and 245.6 ± 11.6 min (group C) (P = 0.120). CL was the best tolerated preparation. Compliance with the bowel preparation regimen was lowest in group C (P = 0.008).Conclusions: A clear liquid diet and overnight fasting is sufficient to achieve an adequate level of cleanliness and is better tolerated by patients than other forms of preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for a high-quality, effective, and safe colonoscopy. The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy and tolerability of split-dose polyethylene glycol with aqueous sodium phosphate for outpatients who underwent scheduled colonoscopy.Methods: In this prospective trial, 207 outpatients (aged between 18 and 65 years, with normal renal function, at low risk for renal damage) were randomized to receive split-dose preparation of PEG (2 L/2 L) (N = 103) or NaP (45 mL/45 mL, 12 h apart) (N = 104) without strict diet restriction the day before colonoscopy. The bowel cleansing efficacy of preparations was rated according to the Ottawa scale and the patient tolerability was assessed using a patient questionnaire.Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups for the mean total score using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale (P = 0.181). Significantly greater residual colonic fluid was observed in the split-dose PEG group (1.24 ± 0.49) than in the NaP group (1.04 ± 0.53) (P = 0.007). Patient compliance, preference, and acceptance of a two preparation regimen were similar with no significant differences (P = 0.095, P = 0.280 and P = 0.408, respectively). The overall incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups; however, the split-dose PEG group tended to have fewer adverse events (52/103 [50.5%], 66/104 [63.5%], P = 0.059) and had significantly less nausea and vomiting (P = 0.036).Conclusions: Split-dose PEG, compared with split-dose NaP, is associated with more residual colonic fluid, but produces equivalent colon cleansing efficacy and results in less nausea and vomiting, which might improve patient tolerability (clinical trial registration number NCT01229800). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Capsule endoscopy (CE) has the problem that lumen visualization is impaired by bubbles, bile, and debris. The benefits of bowel preparation are still controversial and the best method remains to be determined. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the method of bowel preparation on the quality of visualization and on transit time.Methods: The study sample consisted of 68 patients for CE. Patients were randomly allocated to three groups. In group A (n = 23), patients fasted for 12 h before CE. In groups B (n = 20) and C (n = 25), patients received 2 and 4 l of polyethylene glycol (PEG), respectively. Small bowel images were evaluated by use of a cleansing score system. Representative frames were serially selected at 5-min intervals and scored by assessment of two properties (proportion of luminal visibility and extent of obscuration).Results: The median scores of image quality in groups A, B, and C were 2.26, 2.43, and 2.55 respectively, (P = 0.034). Cecal completion rates, gastric transit time, and small bowel transit time were no different among the three groups. Detection of lesions in groups A, B, and C was 56.5, 65.0, and 68.0%, respectively.Conclusions: Bowel preparation with PEG resulted in better image quality than fasting alone. No significant difference was observed between 2 and 4 l. PEG 2 l rather than 4 l may be a useful method of preparation for CE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We aimed to compare the quality of bowel preparation and cecal intubation rates between morning and afternoon colonoscopies and to evaluate the difference in quality of bowel preparation according to the intervals between starting and ending intake of bowel preparation agent and the initiation of colonoscopy.Methods: In this prospective study, 300 outpatients were instructed to drink PEG solution starting either at 5:00 a.m. (morning group) or at 8:00 a.m. (afternoon group) on the same day. The time when PEG intake was started and completed, and when colonoscopy was begun were recorded. The quality of bowel preparation was assessed using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale.Results: There was no significant difference in the Ottawa scale between the morning and the afternoon groups (p = 0.14). Patients with intervals of 7 h or less between the initiation of PEG intake and the start of colonoscopy had a better quality of bowel preparation than those with intervals of more than 7 h (p = 0.03). In addition, patients with intervals of 4 h or less between the end of PEG intake and the start of colonoscopy had a better quality of bowel preparation than those with intervals of more than 4 h (p = 0.02).Conclusions: The time of day at which colonoscopy is performed, whether during the morning or the afternoon, does not have a significant impact on the quality of bowel preparation. The quality of bowel preparation is significantly better in patients with a shorter time between bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of probiotics to treat constipation is based on the premise that supplying the gut with healthy bacteria in the form of probiotics can help normalize intestinal function. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of a 2-week probiotics pretreatment with oral sodium phosphate (NaP) for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy in patients with constipation.Methods: Patients with constipation were prospectively randomized to receive a 2-week probiotics course comprising a mixture of Bacillus subtilis and Streptococcus faecium (group A, n = 51) or placebo (group B, n = 53) with an oral NaP solution. During the same period, another 107 patients with normal bowel movement were enrolled and received the probiotics treatment (n = 53, group C) or placebo (n = 54, group D). The primary outcome measure was the quality of bowel cleansing. Postendoscopic symptoms were estimated using a visual analogue scale.Results: Patients having normal defecation presented with better bowel preparation than those with constipation (57.9% versus 37.5%; P = 0.003). Probiotics pretreatment (group A) was more effective at bowel cleansing for colonoscopy compared with placebo (group B) in constipated patients (54.9% versus 20.8%; P < 0.001). In contrast, preparation quality did not differ significantly between groups C and D. Preparation-related adverse events and postendoscopic symptoms were more frequent and severe in group B than in group A.Conclusion: Two weeks of probiotics pretreatment as part of bowel preparation significantly improves colonic mucosa visualization during colonoscopy and reduces preparation-related and postendoscopic gastrointestinal symptoms in constipated patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]