Search

Several randomized clinical trials comparing different bowel preparations (BP) have shown similar efficacy; however, there is a lack of real-world studies on this topic. This study aims to identify the most effective BP regimen in a real-world setting and any predictors of inadequate BP. A retrospective single-center study was conducted over 14 months at an academic hospital including outpatient colonoscopies in which adult patients did not teach on how to perform BP before colonoscopy. Colonoscopies with 1L-PEG, 2L-PEG and picosulphate mixtures were considered. A multivariable analysis for factors associated to poor BP was fitted. Overall, 1779 patients (51 %F, 60±14) years were included. The 1L-PEG regimen provided a higher rate of BP adequacy at multivariate analysis (adjusted OR 2.30, 95 %CI 1.67–3.16, p < 0.001) and was associated with higher median Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (p < 0.001), higher rate of right-colon cleansing (p < 0.001) and exam completion (p = 0.04). Furthermore, we identified male sex, history of constipation, active smoking, previous pelvic surgery, concomitant psychiatric/neurological or chronic kidney diseases as predictors of inadequate BP. This is the largest real-world study comparing 1L-PEG to other BP regimens. Our results suggest 1L-PEG provides better BP in a non-controlled setting, improving clinical practice quality and minimizing the need for repeated colonoscopies and saving healthcare resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transvaginal ultrasound is effective in diagnosing endometriosis involving the rectosigmoid bowel. Some authors suggest enhanced detection of rectosigmoid involvement with bowel preparation. Conversely, conflicting views argue that bowel preparation may not improve diagnostic precision, yielding similar results to rectal water contrast. No existing meta -analysis compares these approaches. Our study aims to conduct a meta -analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation, with and without rectal water contrast. Studies published between 2000 and 2023 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science. From 561 citations, we selected nine studies to include in this meta -analysis. The study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2). The mean prevalence of endometriosis rectosigmoid was 43.6% (range 17,56–76,66%) in the group with bowel preparation and 64,80% (50,0–83,60%) for the group with bowel preparation and rectal water contrast. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 93% and 94% for bowel preparation and 92% and 95% and for bowel preparation with water contrast. We conclude that, there was no significant difference between performing transvaginal ultrasound with intestinal preparation with and without water contrast. In clinical practice, the absence of a significant difference between these methods should be taken into account when making recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present research was carried out to determine the impact of informing patients who would undergo a colonoscopy via short messaging service (SMS) on the procedure quality and satisfaction. The study was designed as a randomized controlled experimental and single-blind. The study was completed with 170 patients (87 in the control group and 83 in the intervention group). Verbal and written information about bowel preparation was provided to all patients at the first appointment. Additionally, a total of nine informative SMS, including the time of colonoscopy, dietary restrictions to be followed, purgative drugs to be used, and the time of taking the drugs, were sent to the patients in the intervention group starting 2 days before the procedure. Data were collected using a patient questionnaire, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and postcolonoscopy follow-up form. The mean score of each colon segment and the total BBPS mean score of the patients in the intervention group were higher compared to the control group, and the difference between them was statistically significant. The percentage of patients with adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the intervention group (84.3%) in comparison with the control group (71.3%). The intervention group had high compliance with a clear diet, enema application, and oral medication intake (P <.05). The cecum was reached in 85.5% of the intervention group. The majority of the patients (89.2%) in the intervention group reported that the information provided via SMS was adequate, and 91.6% were satisfied with the information provided by SMS. The study shows that, in addition to written and verbal information provided before colonoscopy, SMS information positively impacts the quality of patients' bowel preparation, increases their compliance with the preparation instructions, the rate of reaching the cecum, and their satisfaction. Patient education with this practice can help ensure adequate bowel preparation quality and increase patient comfort in the colonoscopy procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An easy-to-use preparation-related model (PRM) predicting inadequate bowel preparation (BP) was developed and proved superior to traditional models in our previous study. Here we aimed to investigate whether PRM-based individualized intervention can improve BP adequacy. Patients undergoing morning colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in 5 endoscopic centers in China. After standard BP of split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) was completed, patients were randomized (1:1) to the individualized group or standard group. High-risk patients predicted by PRM score ≥3 were instructed to drink an additional 1.5 L PEG in the individualized group while not in standard group. The primary endpoint was the rate of adequate BP, defined by segmental Boston bowel preparation scale ≥2. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adverse events. 900 patients were randomly allocated to the individualized group (n = 449) and the control (n = 451). Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The rates of high-risk patients were 19.6 % in individualized group and 19.7 % in standard group. In intention-to-treat analysis, adequate BP was 91.8 % in individualized group and 84.7 % in the standard group (p = 0.001). Among high-risk patients, adequate BP rate was 94.3 % in individualized group and 49.3 % in standard group (p < 0.001), and ADR were 40.9 % vs 16.9 %, respectively (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found regarding the adverse events and willingness to repeat BP (all p >0.05). The individualized intervention using an additional dose of PEG to high-risk patients predicted by PRM, significantly improved BP quality. The intervention significantly improved ADR in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04434625) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for colonoscopy quality. A novel 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1 L PEG+ASC) solution has been recently introduced. Nevertheless, the efficacy of 1 L PEG+ASC as compared to that of high-volume bowel preparation in both inpatients and outpatients is still unclear. This single-blinded, non-inferiority study randomized patients undergoing colonoscopy to receive split-dose 1 L PEG+ASC or 4 L PEG. The primary endpoint was the overall cleansing success. Secondary endpoints were excellent cleansing and high-quality cleansing of the right colon, as well as lesions detection rate, patient compliance, tolerability and safety. Overall, 478 patients were randomized to 1 L PEG+ASC (N = 236) or 4 L PEG (N = 242). The 1 L PEG+ASC showed higher cleansing success rate (91.8% vs 83.6%; P =0.01) and a high-quality cleansing of the right colon (52.3% and 38.5%; P =0.004) compared to 4 L PEG. Moreover, 1 L PEG+ASC achieved a higher cleansing success in out-patients (96.3%% vs 88.6%; P =0.018), and a similar success rate in the in-patients (84.7% vs 76.7%; P =0.18). Adenoma detection rate, tolerability and incidence of adverse events were comparable between preparations. The 1 L PEG+ASC showed higher efficacy in achieving adequate colon cleansing compared with 4 L PEG, particularly in the right colon. No differences in the tolerability and safety were detected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) preparation has been recently developed to improve patients' experience in colonoscopy. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC compared with those of other bowel preparations for colonoscopy. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing 1-L PEG-ASC with other bowel preparations published through July 2022. A random-effects model was applied for pooling the results; heterogeneity was expressed as I2. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed significantly higher cleansing success (CS) (OR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.25–1.81; p < 0.01, I2 = 0%) and right-colon high-quality cleansing (HQC) (OR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.21–2.31; p < 0.01, I2 = 43%) with 1-L PEG-ASC compared to the other preparations. The pooled estimate of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) did not significantly differ between the two groups either in the overall (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.87–1.20; p = 0.79, I2 = 0%) or split-dosing regimen subgroup analysis (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.84–1.18; p = 0.94, I2 = 0%). A significantly higher pooled estimate of the number of patients with adverse events (AEs) (OR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.23–1.84; p <0.01, I2 = 0%) and incidence of AEs (IRR=1.33; 95% CI = 1.11–1.58; p <0.01, I2 = 71%) was observed with 1-L PEG-ASC than with the other preparations. No serious AEs or deaths occurred. Compared to other preparations, 1-L PEG-ASC yielded higher overall CS, higher right-colon HQC rates, and similar ADR. The number of patients with AEs and incidence of the total AEs were significantly higher with 1-L PEG-ASC in the absence of serious AEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to develop a food program and evaluate the effectiveness of the food program with phone recall (FPPR) for double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) bowel preparation. Sixty outpatients with appointments for their first DCBE were recruited and divided into a standard protocol and FPPR groups. They were requested to prepare bowel cleansing following the guideline of each group. The colon cleansing score, proportion of rejected patients, fatigue score, and satisfaction were evaluated on the examination day. The colon cleansing score and proportion of rejected patients were significantly improved in the FPPR group. Moreover, a significant improvement of fatigue score and bowel preparation satisfaction were also observed in the FPPR group. The implementation of FPPR on the DCBE appointment service might improve bowel cleansing and patients' satisfaction while diminishing fatigue and number of rejected patients on the DCBE procedure. • Bowel preparation using FPPR improved colon cleansing in DCBE patients which decreased the proportion of rejected patients on the examination day. • Bowel preparation using FPPR improved patient's satisfaction and attenuated bowel preparation induced fatigue. • The diet menu in the food program was simple and convenient to practice, resulting in better compliance to the preparation method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • Preoperative Clostridium butyricum (CBM588) supplementation alone did not influence fecal bacterial diversity and without observable improvement of postoperative performance or anastomotic healing in a murine colonic anastomosis model. • Preoperative antibiotic cocktail therapy decreased fecal bacterial α-diversity and altered β-diversity, associated with improved postoperative performance, reduced areas of anastomotic necrosis, and increased anastomotic healing scores in a murine colonic anastomosis model. • Preoperative antibiotic cocktail therapy followed by Clostridium butyricum (CBM588) supplementation decreased fecal bacterial α-diversity, altered and modulated β-diversity, resulting in a remarkably increased percentage of Clostridiaceae. These findings were associated with improved postoperative performance, reduced areas of anastomotic necrosis, and increased anastomotic healing scores in a murine colonic anastomosis model. Microbiota manipulation through preoperative probiotic supplementation to reduce surgical site infection has shown promising results in recent years. However, the changes in gut microbiota resulting from this manipulation remain unclear. In eastern Asia, Clostridium butyricum (CBM588) has been demonstrated to have antimicrobial ability. This study aimed to explore postoperative outcomes associated with microbiota changes in a murine colonic anastomosis model. C57BL/6 mice were divided into four groups. All mice, including group A as the control, received standard oral neomycin and metronidazole before surgery. Group B received CBM588 before surgery. Group C received the antibiotic cocktail therapy before surgery. Group D received the antibiotic cocktail therapy followed by CBM588 supplementation before surgery. A 16S rRNA amplicon with SMS was used to show the impact of different treatments on the murine gut microbiota. The implementation of the antibiotic cocktail therapy resulted in improved postoperative performance, significantly better anastomotic healing scores, and reduced areas of anastomotic necrosis in both group C and D, but particularly prominently in group D. Metagenomic analysis revealed that group D was enriched with the order Clostridiales , the family Clostridiaceae , and the genus Clostridium , with low bacterial diversity and distinct bacterial composition. A preoperative antibiotic cocktail therapy followed by CBM588 supplementation modulates bacterial diversity and composition, resulting in an increased percentage of Clostridiaceae in a murine colonic anastomosis model. The associated outcomes include lower intra-abdominal adhesion scores, improved postoperative performance, improved anastomotic healing scores, and reduced areas of anastomotic necrosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few studies focused on minor adverse events which may develop after colonoscopy. To investigate the incidence and factors associated to post-colonoscopy symptoms. This is a prospective study conducted in 10 Italian hospitals. The main outcome was a cumulative score combining 10 gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms occurring the week following colonoscopy. The analyses were conducted via multivariate logistic regression. Of 793 subjects included in the analysis, 361 (45.5%) complained the new onset of at least one GI symptom after the exam; one symptom was reported by 202 (25.5%), two or more symptoms by 159 (20.1%). Newly developed symptoms more frequently reported were epigastric/abdominal bloating (32.2%), pain (17.3%), and dyspeptic symptoms (17.9%). Symptoms were associated with female sex (odds ratio [OR]=2.54), increasing number of symptoms developed during bowel preparation intake (OR=1.35) and somatic symptoms (OR=1.27). An inverse association was observed with better mood (OR=0.74). A high-risk profile was identified, represented by women with bad mood and somatic symptoms (OR=8.81). About half of the patients develop de novo GI symptoms following colonoscopy. Improving bowel preparation tolerability may reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy symptoms, especially in more vulnerable patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Symptoms developing during bowel preparation are major concerns among subjects who refuse the procedure. We aimed to explore the determinants of symptoms occurring during preparation among patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. This is a prospective multicenter study conducted in 10 Italian hospitals. A multidimensional approach collecting socio-demographic, clinical, psychological and occupational information before colonoscopy through validated instruments was used. Outcome was a four-category cumulative score based on symptoms occurring during preparation, according to the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire, weighted by intensity. Missing values were addressed through multiple imputation. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated through multivariate logistic regression models. 1137 subjects were enrolled. Severe symptoms were associated with female sex (OR=3.64, 95%CI 1.94-6.83), heavier working hours (OR=1.13, 95% CI=1.01-1.25), previous gastrointestinal symptoms (OR=7.81, 95% CI 2.36-25.8 for high score), somatic symptoms (OR=2.19, 95% CI=1.06-4.49 for multiple symptoms), day-before regimen (OR=2.71, 95%CI 1.28-5.73). On the other hand, age ≥60 years (OR=0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.44) and good mood (p=0.042) were protective factors. A high-risk profile was identified, including women with low mood and somatic symptoms (OR=15.5, 95%CI 4.56-52.7). We identified previously unreported determinants of symptoms burdening bowel preparation and identified a particularly vulnerable phenotype. Symptoms during preparation especially impact heavier working activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Very low-volume bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy with 1-liter polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEG-Asc) has displayed high tolerability and quality of bowel cleansing. Concerns have been raised regarding its safety. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of adverse events (AEs) following BP with 1L-PEG-Asc or 2L-PEG-Asc. From January 2019 to September 2020, data from all consecutive adult outpatients who underwent colonoscopy in Our Unit were collected. AEs were assessed by reviewing the clinical and laboratory data of patients who attended the Emergency Department (ED) of Modena District Hospitals in the 7 days following the colonoscopy, and were classified as "BP-related" or "BP-unrelated". During the study, 4069 (68.03%) and 1912 (31.97%) patients underwent colonoscopy after taking 2L-PEG-Asc or 1L-PEG-Asc, respectively. Regarding AEs, 77 (1.29%) patients attended ED, 53 (53/4069, 1.30%) and 24 (24/1912, 1.25%) after taking 2L-PEG-Asc and 1L-PEG-Asc. BP-related AEs were observed in 5 (5/4069, 0.12%) and 4 (4/1912, 0.21%) patients, respectively. The most frequent BP-related AEs were tachyarrhythmias (6/5981, 0.10%). The incidence rate of clinically relevant BP-related AEs is extremely low. This strongly suggests that 1L-PEG-Asc colonoscopy BP is as safe as 2L-PEG-Asc BP in a real-life clinical setting of unselected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preoperative administration of oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP) alone has been shown to reduce infectious outcomes in patients undergoing elective colectomy. However, it remains unclear if these benefits extend to the emergency setting. This is a retrospective, propensity-score matched study comparing 30-day perioperative morbidity between those who received OABP alone versus no preparation prior to urgent colectomy.Methods: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, adults undergoing urgent colectomy from 2012 to 2019 were included. Those who were clinically obstructed or who received mechanical bowel preparation were excluded. Outcomes of interest included: surgical site infection (SSI), leak, ileus, and major morbidity.Results: Of 24,559 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 878 (3.6%) received OABP prior to urgent colectomy. Prior to matching, those receiving no preparation were more likely to have higher ASA class, diabetes, hypertension, preoperative sepsis, open procedures, and a dirty wound classification. After matching, 1756 patients, remained with 878 in each arm. Preoperative characteristics were balanced on univariate analysis. Postoperatively, patients receiving OABP experienced decreased organ space SSI (11.2% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.009) and ileus (30.3% vs. 35.3%, p = 0.029), with no difference in leak rates (3.3% vs 3.3%, p = 1.000) or NSQIP major morbidity (47.4% vs. 49.9%, p = 0.316). On multivariate logistic regression, including propensity score, the reduction in organ space SSI associated with OABP persisted (OR 0.684, 95% CI 0.516-0.903).Conclusion: OABP prior to select urgent colectomies was associated with fewer organ space SSIs and may be considered when feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to compare high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-volume PEG with bisacodyl split-dosing regimens. Adult outpatients in 10 Canadian tertiary hospitals were randomized, stratified by morning or afternoon colonoscopy, to high-volume split-dose PEG (2 L + 2 L) (High-SD) or low volume (1 L + 1 L) + bisacodyl (15 mg) PEG (Low-SD), with a second randomization to liquid or low-residue diets. The primary end point, using noninferiority hypothesis testing, was adequate bowel cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score of ≥6, with each of 3 colonic segments subscores ≥2). Secondary objectives were willingness to repeat the preparation, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and polyp detection rates. Over 29 months, 2314 subjects were randomized to High-SD (N = 1157) or Low-SD (N = 1157) (mean age, 56.2 ± 13.4 y; 52.1% women). Colonoscopy indications were 38.2% diagnostic, 36.8% screening, and 25.0% surveillance, with no between-group imbalances in patient characteristics. Low-SD satisfied noninferiority criteria vs High-SD for adequate bowel cleanliness with only marginally inferior results (90.1% vs 88.1%; P =.02; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI [0.0%; 4.5%]). High-SD was associated with lower willingness to repeat (66.9% vs 91.9%; P <.01), was less well tolerated (7.3 ± 2.3 vs 8.1 ± 1.9; P <.01), causing more symptoms. No differences in procedural outcomes were noted except for more frequent cecal intubation rates after High-SD (97.4% vs 95.6%; P =.02). Among the High-SD group, adequate bowel preparation was greater after a clear liquid diet (93.6% vs 87.9%; P <.01), a finding not seen in the Low-SD group. Low-SD is noninferior to High-SD in providing adequate bowel preparation. Low-SD results in fewer symptoms, with greater willingness to repeat and tolerability. The overall impact of diet was modest.The study was approved by the research ethic boards from all sites and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02547571). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Failed bowel preparation for colonoscopy occurs commonly, but the optimal regimen for the subsequent attempt is unknown. High-volume preparations often are used but are not well studied. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 2 regimens for use after failed bowel preparation. A multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients who previously failed bowel preparation despite adequate compliance. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 split polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens, preceded by 15 mg bisacodyl: PEG 2 L the evening before and 2 L the day of colonoscopy (PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl), or 4 L and 2 L (PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl). All patients followed a low-fiber diet on both the third and second day before the procedure, followed by a clear fluid diet the day before and the morning of the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score of 6 or higher, with all segment scores of 2 or higher. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated lesion detection, cecal intubation rate, tolerability, and adverse events. A total of 196 subjects were randomized at 4 academic centers in Canada (mean age, 60.7 y; SD, 11.4 y; 44.9% were women). There were no significant differences between the PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl and the PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl groups in achieving adequate bowel preparation (91.2% vs 87.6%; P =.44). There were no significant differences with regard to mean adenoma detection rate (37.4% vs 31.5%; P =.41), advanced adenoma detection rate (18.7% vs 11.2%; P =.16), sessile serrated lesion detection (8.8% vs 5.6%; P =.41), and cecal intubation rate (96.7% vs 92.1%; P =.19). The 2 regimens were similarly well tolerated, but PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl was associated with a higher willingness to repeat the bowel preparation (91.2% vs 66.2%; P <.001). Split-dose 4 L-PEG with 15 mg bisacodyl, along with dietary restrictions, has similar efficacy as a higher-volume preparation, and should be considered for patients who previously failed bowel preparation (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02976805). [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effectiveness of bowel cleansing is a key element for high-quality colonoscopy. Recently, a 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) solution has been introduced, but effectiveness and safety of this preparation have not been assessed in IBD patients. This study aims to evaluate effectiveness and safety of 1 L PEG-ASC solution in patients with IBD compared to controls. We retrospectively analysed prospectively collected data on a cohort of 411 patients performing a colonoscopy after preparation with 1 L PEG-ASC, consecutively enrolled in 5 Italian centres. Overall, 185/411 (45%) were patients with IBD and 226/411 (55%) served as controls. A significantly higher cleansing success was achieved in IBD patients (92.9% vs 85.4%, p = 0.02). The multiple regression model showed that presence of IBD (OR=2.514, 95%CI=1.165–5.426; P = 0.019), lower age (OR=0.981, 95%CI=0.967–0.996; P = 0.014), split preparation (OR=2.430, 95%CI=1.076–5.492; P = 0.033), absence of diabetes (OR=2.848, 95%CI=1.228–6.605; P = 0.015), and of chronic constipation (OR=3.350, 95%CI=1.429–7.852; P = 0.005), were independently associated with cleansing success. The number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (51 vs 62%, p = 0.821), and of patients with TEAEs (22.2% vs 21.2%, p = 0.821), were similar in IBD patients and in controls, respectively. Results from this study support the effectiveness and safety of 1 L PEG-ASC solution in IBD patients, which may improve the definition of endoscopic outcomes both in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To investigate the impact of two Meglumine-Diatrizoate based bowel preparation regimes for computed tomography colonography (CTC) on the patient experience and image quality. 100 patients consumed Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 24 h and 12 h prior to the CTC examination. 50 patients followed regime 1 (50:50), 50 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at both 24 and 12 h prior to the examination. 50 patients followed regime 2 (75:25), 75 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 24 h prior to the examination and 25 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 12 h prior to the examination. All patients completed a questionnaire to indicate the time of onset of adverse effects and when they were most severe. Five advanced practitioners assessed the image quality in a visual grading study. Visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis was applied with regime 1 as the reference condition and regime 2 and test condition; test alpha was set at 0.05. Image quality was assessed with successful bowel cleansing as the scoring criteria for the visual grading study. The bowel cleansing as provided by the two Meglumine-Diatrizoate regimes was revealed not to be statistically different, with the area under the VGC curve and 95% confidence intervals 0.487 (0.287, 0.701), p = 0.887. Patients taking the 75:25 bowel preparation experienced a shorter median time to the onset of adverse effects. There was no observed difference in Image quality criteria score for the two Meglumine-Diatrizoate based bowel preparation with more predictable adverse effects of Meglumine-Diatrizoate with the 75:25 preparation. Providing patients with a higher contrast burden 24 h prior to CTC may have a positive impact on the patient experience without compromising image quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The impact of bowel preparation solutions on blood-based, cancer-associated biomarkers have been poorly investigated. • 125 subjects scheduled for a colonoscopy investigating potential colorectal cancer contributed with two blood samples. The collection was before and after usage of bowel preparation solution. • The study demonstrated a systematic, statistical significant difference between pre- and post bowel preparation in three independent biomarkers (BAG4, CyFra21-1 and cell-free DNA). Blood-based, cancer-associated biomarkers are susceptible to a variety of well-known preanalytical factors. The influence of bowel preparation before a diagnostic colonoscopy on biomarker levels is, however, poorly investigated. The present study assessed the influence of bowel preparation on colorectal cancer-associated biomarkers. In addition, the effect of single versus double centrifugation of plasma biomarkers was assessed. Blood samples were collected pre- and post-bowel preparation from 125 subjects scheduled for first time diagnostic colonoscopy due to symptoms attributable to CRC. The samples were separated into serum and EDTA plasma, and analyzed by four independent collaborators for: 1) the proteins AFP, CA19-9, CEA, hs-CRP, CyFra21-1, Ferritin, Galectin-3 and TIMP-1, 2) the proteins BAG4, IL6ST, vWF, CD44 and EGFR, 3) the glycoprotein Galectin-3 ligand, and 4) cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Statistical analysis of biomarker data has been performed using mixed modelling, including repeated measures. The biomarkers generally showed negligible variation between pre- and post-bowel preparation except for CyFra21-1, Ferritin, BAG4 and cfDNA. CyFra21-1 levels were systematically reduced with 29% (95% CI 21–36%) by bowel preparation (p ≤ 0.0001). Ferritin was not significantly different between pre- and post-bowel preparation (p = 0.07), however the estimated difference (increase) was 18%. BAG4 was systematically reduced by 12% (95% CI 1–22%, p = 0.04), while cfDNA showed a significant increase of 28% (95% CI 17–39%, p < 0.0001). Double centrifugation compared to single centrifugation showed reduced vWF (ratio 0.86, p ≤ 0.0001) and CD44 (ratio 0.85, p = 0.016), but increased IL6ST levels (ratio 1.18, p = 0.014). Results of the present study demonstrated systematic, statistically significant differences between pre-bowel and post-bowel preparation levels for three independent blood-based biomarkers (BAG4, CyFra21-1, cfDNA), illustrating the importance of timing of sample collection for biomarker analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A 1 L PEG-based preparation for colonoscopy (NER1006) has been recently developed. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the effectiveness and safety of NER1006 versus traditional preparations. PubMed/Medline and Embase were systematically searched through January 2020 for phase-3 RCTs comparing NER1006 versus standard preparations. Three RCTs (1879 participants) met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed a higher cleansing success for NER1006 compared standard preparations (OR=1.28; 95% CI 1.00–1.62; p = 0.047, I 2=0%) as well as a greater high-quality cleansing of the right colon (OR=2.13; 95% CI 1.16–3.94; p = 0.015, I 2=76.0%) when assessed by the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). The pooled estimate of the NER1006 effect on ADR showed a higher, although not significant, ADR of the right colon (OR=1.19; 95% CI 0.73–1.92; p = 0.485, I 2=53%). When considering the impact of NER1006 on mild to moderate treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), we observed a significant pooled estimate of TEAEs (OR=2.31; 95% CI 1.82–2.94; p <0.001, I 2=0%). When compared to traditional preparations, NER1006 showed a better overall cleansing of the colon as well as a greater high-quality cleansing of the right colon, with comparable ADR. A higher incidence of mild to moderate TEAEs was observed for NER1006, in the absence of serious adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Factors that predict the quality of bowel preparation in older adults are unclear, and current guidelines do not provide specific recommendations. This meta-analysis aimed to identify risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in older patients. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP databases were searched from their inception to February 2023. Cohort and cross-sectional studies exploring the risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation were included in this systematic review. Odds ratio (OR) values from individual studies were pooled using fixed-effects and random-effects models. In addition, a sensitivity analysis and assessment of publication bias were performed. This meta-analysis included six studies (n = 1553) on previous abdominal surgery, six studies (n = 1494) on constipation, seven studies (n = 1505) on diabetes, eight studies (n = 2093) on non-compliance with the diet regimen, seven studies (n = 1350) on incomplete intake of laxative, and nine studies (n = 2163) on inadequate exercise during preparation. The pooled analysis showed that history of abdominal surgery (OR = 2.72; 95 % confidence interval, CI: 2.07 to 3.56), constipation (OR = 3.56, 95 % CI: 2.41 to 5.25), diabetes (OR = 2.54, 95 % CI: 1.81 to 3.57), non-compliance with the diet regimen (OR = 2.51, 95 % CI: 1.96 to 3.21), incomplete intake of laxative (OR = 2.43, 95 % CI: 1.60 to 3.67), and inadequate exercise during preparation (OR = 3.13, 95 % CI: 2.39 to 4.11) were independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in older patients undergoing colonoscopy. Three comorbid factors and three behavioral factors were significantly associated with inadequate bowel preparation in older adults. This meta-analysis provides valuable information for developing predictive models of poor bowel preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colonoscopy requires bowel cleansing for gut mucosa visualization; high-quality cleansing facilitates lesion detection. NER1006 is a 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation. This post hoc analysis of two randomized trials investigated cleansing efficacy assessed, as in clinical practice, by site endoscopists. Patients received NER1006, 2L PEG + ascorbate (2LPEG), or oral sulfate solution (OSS) as a 2-day evening/morning regimen (N2D) or NER1006 morning-only dosing (N1D). Treatment-blinded site endoscopists assessed cleansing using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). Analyses were conducted in a modified full analysis set, including (mFAS; n = 1378) or excluding (mFAS2; n = 1319) imputed failures, and in patients with 100% treatment adherence (mFAS100; n = 1047). Overall cleansing success (HCS grade A/B), overall high-quality cleansing (HCS grade A), and high-quality segments (HCS 3–4) per treatment population were analyzed. Overall cleansing success was higher with N2D than 2LPEG (92.7–97.5% vs. 87.9–93.0%), and more patients had overall high-quality cleansing with N2D and N1D than 2LPEG (68.0–72.1% and 64.0–68.4% vs. 50.7–56.0%). Without imputed failures, N2D delivered more overall high-quality cleansing than OSS (74.5–77.3% vs. 67.8–69.8%). More high-quality segments were demonstrated with N2D and N1D versus 2 LPEG (82.5–87.1% and 79.4–84.4% vs. 70.4–76.3%) and with N2D versus OSS (82.7–89.5% vs. 78.1–84.4%). When assessed by site endoscopists, NER1006 delivers greater high-quality cleansing than 2LPEG or OSS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the presence of residue may compromise diagnostic accuracy. To assess differences in quality of visualisation and diagnostic yield of SBCE using 3 different preparation protocols. Prospective, randomized, blind, pilot study. Protocol A:Clear liquids diet the day before the examination with fasting from 8p.m.; Protocol B:Protocol A + 2 pouches of Moviprep®(polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution + sodium ascorbate) in 1 L of water from 8p.m. of the day before the examination; Protocol C: Protocol A + 2 pouches of Moviprep® in 1 L of water consumed after real-time confirmation of capsule arrival at small bowel. Small bowel preparation was classified by two experienced physicians, considering the percentage of the examination during which mucosal observation was adequate: Excellent(>90%); Good(90–75%); Fair(75–50%); Poor(<50%). 101 patients randomized to the 3 protocols (A 37, B 31, C 33 patients). Protocol C had an excellent/good small bowel preparation in a higher percentage of examinations for both readers(Reader 1-A:37.8% vs B:45.2% vs C:78.8%, p = 0.002 and Reader 2 –A:37.8% vs B:41.9% vs C:75.8%, p = 0.003). Also, protocol C had a higher detection of angioectasia (A:5.4% vs B:9.7% vs C:27.3%, p = 0.022). The administration of Moviprep® after the capsule had reached the small bowel was associated with a better small bowel preparation and a higher detection of angioectasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reducing the morning dose of PEG solution may be a reliable strategy to improve the patient compliance of split-dose regimens without affecting efficacy of bowel cleansing. to compare the efficacy for bowel cleansing of an asymmetric split-dose regimen (25% of the dose on the day of colonoscopy and 75% on the day before) with the standard split-dose regimen. Outpatients were enrolled in a randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial. All subjects received a split-dose preparation with a 2L PEG-citrate-simethicone plus Bisacodyl. Patients were randomly assigned to: group A, asymmetric split-dose regimen; group B, symmetric split-dose regimen. Primary endpoint was the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing. Split-dose was taken by 81 and 80 patients in group A and B. Adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 92.6% and 92.5% patients in group A and B (p = 1.000). No differences were observed regarding Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score, adenoma detection rate and scores of each colon segment. The reduction of morning dose of PEG in a split-dose regimen is not inferior to the standard split-dose regimen in achieving an adequate bowel cleansing. However, further studies are needed to evaluate whether asymmetric preparation is associated to a higher tolerability compared to symmetric split-dose regimen. (NCT03146052) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pediatric bowel preparation protocols used before colostomy reversal vary. The aim of this study is to determine institutional practices at our institution and evaluate the impact of bowel preparations on postoperative outcomes and hospital length of stay in children. This was a retrospective review of children ≤ 18 years old undergoing colostomy reversal at Texas Children's Hospital (TCH) between 12/2013 and 8/2017. Preoperative bowel regimens and outcomes were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum and Fishers Exact tests. Continuous variables are presented as median [IQR]. Sixty-one children underwent colostomy reversal. Thirty-eight (62%) did not receive a preoperative bowel preparation. The two cohorts were similar in age, gender, and race. The most common indication for colostomy was anorectal malformation for thirty-seven (61%). Time from admission to surgery (19 h [17, 23] vs 3 [2, 3]; p < 0.01) and HLOS (6 days [5, 8] vs 5 [4, 6]; p = 0.02) were both longer in the bowel preparation cohort. Complications (3 [13%] vs 5 [22%]; p = 0.12) and 90-day readmissions (3 [13%] vs 6 [16%]; p = 0.64) were similar in both cohorts. Foregoing bowel preparation may have the potential to improve cost and reduce morbidity in children undergoing colostomy closure. III. Treatment study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing evidence indicates that combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces the infectious complications of colorectal surgery. Anecdotal evidence suggests the combination is rarely used in the UK and Europe.Aim: To establish colorectal surgeons' current use and awareness of the benefits of such bowel preparation, and to identify decision-making influences surrounding preoperative bowel preparation.Method: An electronic survey was emailed to all members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, and promoted via Twitter.Findings: A total of 495 respondents completed the survey: 413 (83.2%) UK, 39 (7.9%) other European, 43 (8.7%) non-European. Respondents used oral antibiotics for 12-20% of cases. Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), phosphate enema, and no preparation, respectively, ranged between 9 and 80%. Combined MBP and oral antibiotic bowel preparation ranged between 5.5 and 18.6%. Fifty-three percent (260/495) agreed that combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces surgical site infection; 32% (157/495) agreed that the combination reduces risk of anastomotic leak. Kappa statistics between 0.06 and 0.27 indicate considerable incongruity between surgeons' awareness of the literature, and day-to-day practice. Twenty-four percent (96/495) believed MBP to be incompatible with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS); 41% (204/495) believed that MBP delays return to normal intestinal function.Conclusions: Few UK and European colorectal surgeons use mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation, despite evidence of its efficacy in reducing infectious complications. The influence of ERAS pathways and UK and European guidelines may explain this. In contradiction to the UK and Europe, North American guidelines recommend incorporating combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation into ERAS programmes. This study suggests that future UK and European guidelines incorporate combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation into the ERAS pathway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/purpose: While the use of oral antibiotic (OA) for bowel preparation is gaining popularity, it is unknown whether it increases the risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of OA on the development of CDI after colectomy.Methods: Patients who underwent colectomy from the ACS-NSQIP data (2015 and 2016) were included. Patients who received OA as bowel preparation were compared to those who did not with respect to demographics, comorbidities, primary diagnosis, procedure type and approach, and 30-day postoperative complications. Multivariable analysis was performed to characterize the association between OA and CD infection after colectomy. A sub-group analysis was also conducted for patients who did not develop any postoperative infectious complication.Results: Of 36,374 included patients, 18,177 (50%) received OA and 527 (1.4%) developed CDI for the whole cohort. OA group had more younger, functionally independent and obese patients with lower American Society of Anesthesiologists and wound class. Smoking, diabetes, hypertension, dyspnea or ventilator-dependence, congestive heart failure, disseminated cancer, bleeding disorder, and perioperative transfusion were significantly higher for non-OA group. Mechanical bowel preparation, minimally invasive surgery, conversion to open and operative duration ≥ 180 min were more prevalent in the OA group. The OA group had significantly reduced occurrence of CDI; superficial, deep, and organ space infections; wound disruption; anastomotic leak; reoperation; and infections including sepsis, septic shock, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection. On multivariable analysis, OA reduced the odds for CDI after colectomy (OR = 0.6, 95% CI = [0.5-0.8]). For patients who did not develop infectious postoperative complications, OA was associated with lower risk of CDI (OR = 0.7, CI = [0.5-0.9]). While complications, reoperation, and readmission rates were the same, postoperative ileus and hospital stay were significantly lower for those who developed CDI after receiving OA when compared to non-OA.Conclusion: The use of OA as bowel preparation may reduce, rather than increase, the risk of 30-day CDI after colectomy. This effect may partly be due to the other recovery advantages associated with oral antibiotics. These data further support current data recommending the use of oral antibiotics for bowel preparation before colectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Despite several guidelines on bowel preparation being available, their applicability in Italy is poorly investigated. Aims (1) To create expert-based recommendations for the Italian setting based on available international guidelines on bowel preparation for colonoscopy; (2) to assess consensus across the Italian endoscopy community. Methods The study was conducted in 2 phases: (a) statements formulation, (b) assessment of consensus. For the first phase, 6 topics related to bowel preparation were identified: (1) efficacy/tolerability; (2) timing; (3) assessment of quality of bowel preparation; (4) factors associated with inadequate preparation; (5) patient education and (6) impact of organisational factors. For each topic, statements were produced and voted by a panel of experts. For consensus assessment, the invited participants were asked to rate the statements. The statement achieved a good level of agreement when at least 70% of voters agreed with it. Results 25 statements were agreed in the first phase. Agreement was not achieved by the endoscopy community for 7 statements, mainly concerning practical aspects (i.e. strategies for management of patients with inadequate preparation, organisational factors). Conclusion A clinically relevant consensus was achieved on the main topics of bowel preparation, such as the choice of laxative and the time of administration, and it may help to homogenize the colonoscopy practice in Italy. Nevertheless, there are a few country-specific preparation-related issues that need to be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Colonoscopy performed in the afternoon, rather than morning, has been reported to be associated with lower rates of adenoma and polyp detection (ADR and PDR) and cecal intubation (CIR). This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of afternoon colonoscopy relative to morning colonoscopy. Methods The databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify potential relevant studies. The primary outcome was ADR and the secondary outcomes were CIR and PDR. The outcomes were estimated by relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with a random effects model. Results Sixteen studies with 38,063 participants met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analyses indicated that ADR (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.00–1.17) and CIR (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00–1.02) were stable during the whole day. In subgroup analyses, the effect of full-day block or inferior bowel preparation were more prominent, reflected by a significant reduction of ADR (RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.09–1.28; RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01–1.24) and CIR (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02–1.13; RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01–1.03) in the afternoon, respectively. Conclusions Colonoscopy quality, as indicated by the ADR and CIR, is not affected by the time of day for procedures performed in block shifts. However, endoscopists’ working full-day blocks and inferior bowel preparation are associated with a significant decrease in ADR and CIR in the afternoon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background & aims The optimal duration of bowel preparation has only been assessed for polyethylene glycol (PEG). The aim of the study was to determine the intervals for achieving a satisfactory quality/tolerability of the preparation using PEG/ascorbic acid (PEGA) and sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (SPMC), and to compare them with 4L of PEG. Methods A randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicentre study. The 612 outpatients referred to a colonoscopy, were prepared using PEG, SPMC, PEGA. The quality, tolerability, duration of the preparation, and the interval from the end of the preparation to the colonoscopy was assessed. Results Optimum duration of the preparation was similar for both PEG and SPMC (≥7.3 vs. ≥8.8 h, overall ≥8.4 h). Optimum interval to the colonoscopy was ≤11.8 h and did not differ between preparations (PEG, PEGA ≤ 11.8, SPMC ≤ 13.3 h). These times were the only predictors for a satisfactory preparation. The tolerability depends on the product type (SPMC) only. Timing of the preparation or the other factors had no impact on tolerability. Conclusion The optimum intervals for bowel preparation are identical for all preparations. Satisfactory preparation is achived at the preparation length ≥8.4 h and the time to colonoscopy ≤11.8 h. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Assess whether application of a micro-enema can reduce gas-induced susceptibility artefacts in Single-shot Echo Planar Imaging (EPI) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the rectum at 1.5 T.Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of n = 50 rectal cancer patients who each underwent multiple DWI-MRIs (1.5 T) from 2012 to 2016 as part of routine follow-up during a watch-and-wait approach after chemoradiotherapy. From March 2014 DWI-MRIs were routinely acquired after application of a preparatory micro-enema (Microlax®; 5 ml; self-administered shortly before acquisition); before March 2014 no bowel preparation was given. In total, 335 scans were scored by an experienced reader for the presence/severity of gas-artefacts (on b1000 DWI), ranging from 0 (no artefact) to 5 (severe artefact). A score ≥3 (moderate-severe) was considered a clinically relevant artefact. A random sample of 100 scans was re-assessed by a second independent reader to study inter-observer effects. Scores were compared between the scans performed without and with a preparatory micro-enema using univariable and multivariable logistic regression taking into account potential confounding factors (age/gender, acquisition parameters, MRI-hardware, rectoscopy prior to MRI).Results: Clinically relevant gas-artefacts were seen in 24.3% (no micro-enema) vs. 3.7% (micro-enema), odds ratios were 0.118 in univariable and 0.230 in multivariable regression (P = 0.0005 and 0.0291). Mean severity score (±SD) was 1.19 ± 1.71 (no-enema) vs 0.32 ± 0.77 (micro-enema), odds ratios were 0.321 (P < 0.0001) and 0.489 (P = 0.0461) in uni- and multivariable regression, respectively. Inter-observer agreement was excellent (κ0.85).Conclusion: Use of a preparatory micro-enema shortly before rectal EPI-DWI examinations performed at 1.5 T MRI significantly reduces both the incidence and severity of gas-induced artefacts, compared to examinations performed without bowel preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Success of colonoscopy is linked to the adequacy of bowel cleansing. Polyethylene glycol 4 L (PEG 4 L) solutions are widely used for colonic cleansing but with limitations concerning tolerability and acceptability. Aim To demonstrate the equivalence of a new low-volume PEG containing citrates and simeticone (Clensia) versus a standard PEG 4 L. Methods In this, multicentre, randomised, observer-blind trial, patients received either Clensia 2 L or PEG 4 L solution. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with colon cleansing evaluated as excellent or good. Results 422 patients received Clensia (n = 213) or PEG 4 L (n = 209). Rate of excellent/good bowel cleansing was 73.6% and 72.3% in Clensia and PEG 4 L group respectively. Clensia was demonstrated to be equivalent to PEG 4 L. No SAEs were observed. Clensia showed better gastrointestinal tolerability (37.0% vs 25.4%). The acceptability was significantly better with Clensia in terms of proportion of subjects who felt no distress (Clensia 72.8% vs PEG 4 L 63%, P = 0.0314) and willingness-to-repeat (93.9% vs 82.2%, P = 0.0002). The rate of optimal compliance was similar with both formulations (91.1% for Clensia vs 90.9% for PEG 4 L, P = 0.9388). Conclusions The low-volume Clensia is equally effective and safe in bowel cleansing compared to the standard PEG 4 L, with better gastrointestinal tolerability and acceptability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Cirrhosis has been shown in small studies to be a predictor of suboptimal bowel preparation at screening colonoscopy. It has yet to be established whether patients with chronic liver disease in the absence of cirrhosis experience equally poor colon cleansing. Intestinal dysmotility related to cirrhosis might impair bowel preparation in this population more than those with chronic liver disease without cirrhosis. Objective This study compared the quality of bowel preparation in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients with chronic liver disease and determined whether this influenced polyp detection rate. Methods A retrospective study of patients with chronic liver disease, both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic, who underwent screening colonoscopy was performed. Patient characteristics, concomitant medication use, adequacy of bowel preparation, and the total number and types of polyps found were compared between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic groups. Results 330 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria; 36% ( n = 120) were cirrhotic. Cirrhotic patients had significantly worse bowel preparation scores compared with non-cirrhotics (mean 3.4 ± 1.1 vs. 3.7 ± 0.9, P = 0.003). Worse bowel preparation scores in cirrhotics vs. non-cirrhotics persisted despite controlling for age, sex, and concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) ( P = 0.0027). Among the cirrhotics, 48% had the lowest preparation scores compared with 30% of non-cirrhotics. No difference in polyp detection rate was found between cirrhotics and non-cirrhotics. Severity of cirrhosis as assessed by the MELD score did not predict worse bowel preparation. Conclusions Cirrhotics have significantly worse bowel preparation scores compared to non-cirrhotics with chronic liver disease. No correlation between MELD score and bowel preparation score was observed in the cirrhotic cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives To investigate the effect of preoperative bowel preparation for patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery. Background Bowel preparation before major surgery is performed routinely to reduce the risk of postoperative complications related to gastrointestinal function. Methods A randomised clinical trial was performed that included forty-five elective spinal fusion patients allocated to one control group and two treatment groups. The patients received preoperative bowel preparation with enema, suppository or no bowel preparation. The outcome measures were defecation within 72 hours postoperatively, defecation on the fifth postoperative day, postoperative constipation, nausea, pain, well-being and ambulation. Results There were significant differences in favour of no bowel preparation compared with suppository group for the primary outcome; days to first defecation. There was a tendency for the patients who received no bowel preparation to recover from constipation more quickly than patients in the bowel preparation groups. The majority of patients did not defecate until the fourth postoperative day. Conclusions This randomised study found no benefit from bowel preparation before major spine surgery on gastrointestinal function. The use of bowel preparation is not evidence-based and not performing it should be considered before major spine surgery until the effect is known. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy of three bowel preparation regimens for transabdominal colon ultrasonography. A total of 192 consecutive patients were given one of three regimens (senna, magnesium sulfate or polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder) before ultrasonographic examinations. The cleaning grade (I = emptying; II = filled or filled + empty; III = I or II with some retention; and IV = retention [grades I and II were termed "qualified"]) and cleaning range (A = all seven colon sections were qualified; B = four to six sections were qualified; C = three or less sections were qualified) were evaluated retrospectively. Senna was found more effective than polyethylene glycol in terms of cleaning grade (p < 0.001), qualified rate (p < 0.001) and cleaning range (p = 0.003). Senna was better than magnesium sulfate in cleaning grade (p < 0.001). Our results suggest that senna seems to be the preferred regimen for bowel preparation before transabdominal colonic ultrasonography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and study aims Obesity is a recognised risk factor for poor bowel preparation in retrospective studies whilst corresponding data in prospective trials are marginally reported. Aims are to evaluate the relation between body mass index (BMI) and preparation quality in retrospective and interventional prospective settings and within a single centre. Patients and methods Data from a recent colorectal cancer screening registry were retrospectively analysed for the relation between BMI and adequacy of preparation. Patients were categorised as underweight (BMI < 20 kg/m 2 ), normal (20–25 kg/m 2 ), overweight (25–30 kg/m 2 ), and obese (>30 kg/m 2 ). Data from a recent prospective colon preparation trial were similarly analysed. Results 541 registry patients were included. Multivariate analysis showed BMI to be an independent risk factor for inadequate preparation. Obesity was associated with odds ratio (OR) of 5.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4–19.8; p = 0.01] compared to normal BMI. A significant difference was also noted in underweight but otherwise healthy individuals (OR = 11.1, 95% CI 2–60; p = 0.005). In the prospective study of 195 patients, obese patients had comparable rates of inadequate preparation to normal-weight individuals (OR = 0.7, 95% CI 1.1–3.96; p = 0.68). Underweight patients had a significantly worse preparation compared to normal BMI individuals (OR = 8, 95% CI 1.1–58; p = 0.04). Conclusions In real life, bowel preparations in obese individuals have a lower quality in comparison to normal individuals. This finding is not replicated in clinical trials. This discrepancy is likely the result of focused patient education suggesting that this is primarily a dietary compliance phenomenon. Underweight individuals appear to have worse quality of preparation independent of study design or setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Quality of bowel cleansing in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy is often unsatisfactory. No study has investigated the inpatient or outpatient setting as cause of inadequate cleansing. Aims To assess degree of bowel cleansing in inpatients and outpatients and to identify possible predictors of poor bowel preparation in the two populations. Methods Prospective multicentre study on consecutive colonoscopies in 25 regional endoscopy units. Univariate and multivariate analysis with odds ratio estimation were performed. Results Data from 3276 colonoscopies were analyzed (2178 outpatients, 1098 inpatients). Incomplete colonoscopy due to inadequate cleansing was recorded in 369 patients (11.2%). There was no significant difference in bowel cleansing rates between in- and outpatients in both colonic segments. In the overall population, independent predictors of inadequate cleansing both at the level of right and left colon were: male gender (odds ratio, 1.20 [1.02–1.43] and 1.27 [1.05–1.53]), diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 2.35 [1.68–3.29] and 2.12 [1.47–3.05]), chronic constipation (odds ratio, 1.60 [1.30–1.97] and 1.55 [1.23–1.94]), incomplete purge intake (odds ratio, 2.36 [1.90–2.94] and 2.11 [1.68–2.65]) and a runway time >12 h (odds ratio, 3.36 [2.40–4.72] and 2.53 [1.74–3.67]). Conclusions We found no difference in the rate of inadequate bowel preparation between hospitalized patients and outpatients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims There are different regimens of preparing the colon for colonoscopy, including polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate, picosulfate, or oral sulfate solutions. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of split-dose vs other colon preparation regimens, the optimal products for use, and the most effective preparation volumes. Methods We performed systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of knowledge databases, from January 1980 to March 2014, for published results from randomized trials that assessed split-dose regimens vs day-before colonoscopy preparation. We excluded studies that included pediatric or hospitalized patients, or patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The primary outcome was efficacy of bowel cleansing. Secondary outcomes included side effects or complications, outcomes of procedures, patients’ willingness to repeat the procedure, and the amount of time required for patients to resume daily activities. Results We identified 47 trials that fulfilled our inclusion criteria (n = 13,487 patients). Split-dose preparations provided significantly better colon cleansing than day-before preparations (odds ratio [OR], 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.86–3.39), as well as day-before preparations with PEG (OR, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.46–4.63), sodium phosphate (OR, 9.34; 95% confidence interval, 2.12–41.11), or picosulfate (OR, 3.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.95–6.45). PEG split-dose preparations of 3 L or more yielded greater bowel cleanliness than lower-volume split-dose regimens (OR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–3.46), but only in intention-to-treat analysis. A higher proportion of patients were willing to repeat split-dose vs day-before cleansing (OR, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–3.46), and low-volume split-dose preparations vs high-volume split-dose preparation (OR, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21–11.10). There were no differences between preparations in other secondary outcome measures. However, there was variation among studies in definitions and main and secondary outcomes. Conclusions Based on meta-analysis, split-dose regimens increase the quality of colon cleansing and are preferred by patients compared with day-before preparations. Additional research is required to evaluate oral sulfate solution–based and PEG low-volume regimens further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) continues to be widely used in gynecologic surgery, with the aim of reducing postoperative complications and improving the viewing and handling conditions in the surgical field. It is reported that MBP is an unpleasant patient experience and may be associated with adverse effects such as dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. This review evaluates the use of preoperative MBP compared with no MBP in adult patients undergoing open abdominal, laparoscopic, or vaginal surgery. Although the focus is on the use of MBP for gynecologic procedures, data from other surgical areas are covered when relevant. Design A comprehensive search of the databases Medline (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1947), PubMed, Cochrane Library Central (Register of Controlled Trials), and Google Scholar was performed to identify any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or retrospective cohort studies comparing preoperative MBP to no MBP. Results Forty-three studies were identified in various surgical specialties, of which there were 5 RCTs in gynecology. The gynecologic studies reported no benefit for MBP in operative time or improved surgical field of view but did report a more unpleasant patient experience when MBP is used. RCTs from colorectal and urologic surgery were powered for infectious morbidity and anastomotic leak and did not demonstrate improved patient outcomes when MBP was used. Conclusion Evidence from high-quality trials reports no or few benefits from MBP or rectal enema across surgical specialties. In the field of gynecologic surgery, high-quality evidence supports the view that MBP may be safely abandoned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preventing surgical site infection is perhaps the most direct method of decreasing medical expenses. The following is an attempt at comprehensive ways of decreasing surgical site infection as well as decreasing patient discomfort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Bowel cleansing is paramount for colonoscopy quality. Unfortunately, an adequate bowel preparation is often limited by side effects and/or patient's intolerance to bowel preparation solutions. Comparisons among different preparations are limited by the lack of validated instruments designed to assess patient's tolerability. Aim To develop and validate a simple, comprehensive instrument to assess bowel preparation tolerability in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Methods Development and validation by phases: Phase I (bibliographic search and questionnaire design); Phase II (assessment of content validity and modification of the questionnaire); Phase III (assessment of reproducibility, final validation, and definitive version of the questionnaire). Results The initial draft of the questionnaire was generated based on a systematic literature review and feedback from a panel of consultants. Content validity was tested in a focus group of 25 patients undergoing colonoscopy. Patients’ suggestions were reviewed by the research team and a second draft of the questionnaire was generated. Final validation and reproducibility were successfully tested (agreement: 86–100%, kappa: 0.77–1.00) in a convenience sample of 100 patients undergoing bowel preparation with different cleansing solutions. Conclusion The Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire is a simple, comprehensive instrument suitable to evaluate the tolerability of various types of bowel preparations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Small bowel cleansing by capsule endoscopy has never been addressed in children. Methods: Randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of five bowel preparation regimens on the mucosal visibility surface (as percentage of visualized surface area). Group A: a clear liquid diet for 12h on the day before; Group B: high volume polyethylene glycol (50mL/kg, up to 2Lt/die); Group C: low volume polyethylene glycol (25mL/kg up to 1Lt/die); Group D: 20mL (376mg) of oral simethicone; Group E: 25mL/kg (up to 1Lt/die) of polyethylene glycol solution plus 20mL (376mg) of oral simethicone. Results: Overall, 198 patients (53% male, median age 13 years) were enrolled. Preparation regimen visualization scores were 14.1±4.2, 18.9±5.1, 17.8±5.5, 14.9±4.8 and 20.9±4.6 in groups A, B, C, D and E, respectively (P <0.01). Positive findings were found in 172 cases (87%), but no significant differences were observed in the diagnostic yield and tolerability. Interobserver agreement, k =0.89 (95% CI 0.83±0.71). Conclusion: This is the first report in children that supports the use of 25mL/kg (up to 1Lt/die) of polyethylene glycol solution plus 20mL (376mg) of oral simethicone as the preparation of choice for capsule endoscopy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To compare the effect of three different patient preparation strategies for reducing bowel motion on image quality in pelvic MRI.Methods: Retrospective study in which 95 consecutive patients undergoing pelvic MRI were subdivided based on preparation type for reduction of bowel motion: group 1 (N = 31) fasted 4 h and applied an enema (Bisacodyl 10 mg); group 2 (N = 32) received no medication; group 3 (N = 32) received intravenous butylscopolamine (Buscopan® 50 mg). Image quality was reviewed by visual assessment of delineation (3-point-scale) of pelvic structures: uterus, adnexa, bladder, rectum, sigmoid, uterosacral ligaments, round ligaments and small bowel. As secondary endpoint the presence of rectal wall edema was evaluated. Interobserver agreement was calculated, as well as relative diagnostic odds ratios (RDOR) for the protocols to provide an outcome in the best delineation category.Results: Interobserver agreement proportions varied from 0.48 to 1.00. The rectum and sigmoid colon respectively have a 5.4 and 2.6 RDOR when butylscopolamine is applied compared to Bisacodyl (P = 0.051; P = 0.008), and a 4.2 and 5.7 times higher RDOR with Bisacodyl preparation compared to no medical preparation (P = 0.006; P < 0.01). Small bowel delineation was significantly better with butylscopolamine compared to Bisacodyl (P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in delineation of the other structures between protocols. There is a significant higher chance of observing rectal wall edema with Bisacodyl compared to the other protocols (both P < 0.001).Conclusions: Butylscopolamine provides better delineation of the small bowel and rectosigmoid compared to Bisacodyl, which in turn, provides better delineation of the rectosigmoid compared to no medication. Moreover, Bisacodyl causes rectal wall edema in the majority of cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Bowel preparation represents an essential part of CT colonography, as the accuracy of the exam is strongly related to the adequacy of colonic cleansing, and a poor bowel preparation may compromise the diagnostic quality even despite optimization of all other acquisition parameters. Residual stool and fluid in the large bowel may affect the interpretation of the exam and may increase the number of false positives and false negatives. In this regard, the majority of patients having undergone CT colonography state that bowel preparation is the most unpleasant part. Unfortunately, to date no definite consensus has been reached about the ideal bowel preparation technique, and there is great variability in preparation strategies across diagnostic centers. The purpose of this review article is to describe the development and evolution of bowel preparation techniques in order to choose the best approach for optimizing the diagnostic quality of CT colonography in each patient. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Introduction: The utility of a preoperative mechanical bowel preparation prior to bowel surgery has recently been questioned. The purpose of this study is to compare the perioperative outcomes between patients undergoing cystectomy with urinary diversion with or without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. Methods: Seventy patients underwent radical cystectomy and urinary diversion between May 2008 and August 2009 for bladder cancer. The first cohort of patients (n = 37) underwent cystectomy and diversion during the period May 2008–December 2008 and underwent a preoperative mechanical bowel preparation including a clear liquid diet, magnesium citrate solution, and an enema before surgery. The second cohort of patients underwent surgery during the period of January 2009–August 2009 (n=33). These patients were given a regular diet before surgery and did not undergo a mechanical bowel preparation except for the enema before surgery was performed to decrease rectal/colonic distention. Outcome measures included gastrointestinal and overall complications, and perioperative outcomes including recovery of bowel function. Results: There were no differences with regard to recovery of bowel function, time to discharge, or overall complication rates between the 2 groups. More specifically, the rate of GI complications was not different in prepped patients vs. nonprepped patients (22% vs. 15%; P = 0.494). There were no occurrences of bowel anastomotic leak, fistula, abscess, peritonitis, or surgical site infection in either group. One perioperative death occurred in the nonprepped group secondary to cardiovascular complications. Conclusions: Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation prior to radical cystectomy with urinary diversion does not demonstrate any significant advantage in perioperative outcomes, including gastrointestinal complications. Further studies aimed at measuring patient satisfaction and larger randomized trials will be beneficial in evaluating the role of mechanical bowel preparation prior to urinary diversion. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: 4-L polyethylene glycol preparations are effective for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. However, large volume and unpleasant taste reduce tolerability and acceptability limiting patient compliance. A new isosmotic low-volume polyethylene glycol preparation with citrates and simethicone plus bisacodyl has been developed to improve patient compliance and tolerability. Aim: To compare the efficacy of 2 different regimens of preparation vs a split-dose of polyethylene glycol solution. Patients and methods: In this randomised, blinded, comparative study, 153 patients were allocated to 3 arms. Arm 1 (n =52) received bisacodyl and 2-L polyethylene glycol with citrates and simethicone the day before the procedure. Arm 2 (n =50) received bisacodyl the day before and 2-L polyethylene glycol with citrates and simethicone on the day of colonoscopy. Control group (n =51) received a split-dose of 4-L polyethylene glycol. Cleansing was evaluated according to Ottawa scale. Results: The mean Ottawa score was not different in the 3 groups. Excellent cleansing was observed more frequently in arm 2 (70%) than in controls (49%) (p <0.05). No serious adverse events were observed in the 3 regimens. The willingness to repeat the same bowel preparation was superior in arms 1 and 2 than in controls (p <0.001). Conclusions: New low-volume preparations seem to be as effective as the split 4-L polyethylene glycol regimen, showing a better tolerability and acceptability. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Aim: Quality of bowel cleansing significantly increases the shorter the time between bowel solution intake and endoscopic examination. We tested the efficacy and patient tolerability following a modified polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) splitting regimen. Methods: This was a prospective, single-blind, randomized, study. Patients were assigned to receive either PEG 4L the afternoon before colonoscopy or PEG 3L the day before and 1L 3h before the procedure the day of colonoscopy. Results: The study population consisted of 336 patients, including 168 participants in each study arm. Although the bowel preparation quality was similarly quoted as excellent/good following the split and full regimen (95.2% vs 92.8%; p =0.3), a significant (p <0.0001) shift from good towards an excellent preparation (26.8% vs 68.4%) was observed following the split regimen as compared to the full regimen (55.4% vs 37.5%). The incidence of side-effects did not differ. When patients were asked about a future preparation if needed, 69% and 31% following the split and full regimen, respectively, declared to accept again the same preparation, the difference being statistically significant (p <0.001). Conclusions: Our data found that an excellent bowel cleansing could be frequently achieved by simply modifying the split regimen from the standard PEG 2 plus 2L to 3 plus 1L. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Bowel preparation is critical for the efficacy and safety of colonoscopy. Poor patient tolerance to bowel preparation has been associated with the high amount of fluid administered. A 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution containing ascorbic acid has been recently developed. Aims: To compare the efficacy, safety and acceptability of 2-L PEG+ascorbic acid vs 4-L PEG for colonoscopy. Methods: We designed a single blind randomized non-inferiority study in order to compare the two bowel preparations. A blinded assessment of cleansing was made by the endoscopist according to the Aronchick scale. Acceptability was assessed by questionnaire. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis were reported. Results: Overall, 169 patients (PP: 166) were selected for the 2-L PEG+ascorbic acid and 170 (PP: 166) for the 4-L PEG. When rating global bowel cleansing at ITT, an excellent-good level was reported in 84.6% (PP: 86.2%) of patients who received 2-L PEG+ascorbic acid and 75.3% (PP: 77%) of patients who received 4-L PEG (p =0.04). Acceptability rate favoured 2-L PEG+ascorbic acid vs 4-L PEG (83% vs 76%; p =0.02). Conclusions: 2-L PEG+ascorbic acid, completed with an additional L of clear fluids, provided bowel cleansing which appeared to be more effective and acceptable than 4-L PEG. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: In response to studies in adults that have failed to demonstrate a benefit for mechanical bowel preparation in colonic surgery, we sought to evaluate the utility of mechanical bowel preparation in a multicenter, retrospective study of children who underwent colostomy takedown. Methods: The records of 272 children who underwent colostomy takedown at 3 large children''s hospitals were reviewed, and the utilization of mechanical bowel preparation and perioperative antibiotics was noted. Length of stay and the incidences of wound, anastomotic, and other complications were compared. Results: A polyethylene glycol bowel prep was administered to 187 children. All subjects received perioperative, intravenous antibiotics, and 52% of those with bowel preps received preoperative oral antibiotics. Subjects in the bowel prep group had a significantly higher incidence of wound infection (P = .04) and longer length of stay (P = .05). Oral antibiotics did not affect outcome. Conclusions: The use of a mechanical bowel preparation in children before colostomy takedown was associated with a greater risk for wound infection, no protection from other complications, and a longer length of stay. This suggests that bowel preparation may be safely omitted in many children who undergo colonic surgery, thereby reducing cost and discomfort. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]