Search

Adequate bowel cleansing is crucial for endoscopic diagnosis and treatment, and the recovery of gut microbiota after intestinal cleansing is also important. A hypertonic syrup predominantly comprising l-arabinose and d-xylose (20% xylo-oligosaccharides) can be extracted from the hemicellulose of corn husks and cobs. l-Arabinose and xylo-oligosaccharides have been reported to relieve constipation and improve the gut microbial environment. This study evaluated the bowel cleansing effect of the aforementioned syrup and its influence on the organism and intestinal microbiota after cleansing in comparison with polyethylene glycol-4000 (PEG-4000) in mice. Bowel cleansing was performed using syrup or PEG-4000 in C57BL/6J mice, and the effect of intestinal preparation and its influence on serum electrolytes and gut microbiota after bowel cleansing were evaluated. The volume of intestinal residual feces in the syrup group was significantly lower than that in the PEG-4000 group. Additionally, syrup disturbed serum electrolytes more mildly than PEG-4000. Alpha diversity in the gut microbiota was significantly higher in the syrup group than in the PEG-4000 group on the first day after bowel cleansing. However, no difference in beta diversity was observed between the two groups. Syrup increased the abundance of Bifidobacteria and Christensenella and decreased the abundance of Akkermansia in comparison with PEG-4000 on the first day after bowel cleansing. Thus, this syrup has potential clinical use as a bowel cleansing agent given the above effects, its benefits and safety, and better taste and acceptability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The pre-colonoscopy diet traditionally involves 24 h of a clear liquid diet (CLD) in combination with a lavage solution; however, this preparation is poorly tolerated.Aim: To compare the impact on the quality of bowel cleansing and tolerability of a CLD versus a low-residue diet (LRD).Methods: We performed a randomized trial. Subjects were randomized to CLD or LRD the day before of elective colonoscopy. All subjects received a 4-L preparation of single-dose PEG beginning 16 h prior to colonoscopy. The Boston bowel preparation scale was used to evaluate bowel cleansing; an adequate-quality preparation was defined as a score ≥ 2 per segment.Results: A total of 205 subjects were included with a mean age (SD) of 55.6 (12.6) years; 133 (64.9%) of them were female. A total of 105 subjects were randomized to receive CLD and 100 to LRD. No significant differences in bowel preparation quality were observed between groups according to the section of colon: right colon (70% vs. 73%, p = 0.08), transverse colon (82% vs. 79%, p = 0.062), or left colon (80% vs. 78.7%, p = 0.28). There was a tendency toward less-frequent nausea (p = 0.08) and vomiting (p = 0.07) in patients with LRD. No differences between groups regarding ADR (12% vs. 10%) were noted.Conclusions: An LRD before colonoscopy resulted in a tendency toward improved tolerability by patients, with no differences in the quality of bowel preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of review: Adequate bowel cleansing before colonoscopy is a simple concept but the high rate of inadequate or incomplete bowel cleanliness and its consequences have been the subject of many studies, guidelines, and meta-analysis. The complexity resides in all the factors surrounding preparation intake such as type and regimen of bowel preparation, diets, compliance, and also patient-related factors that all influence quality of the bowel preparation. The purpose of this review is to focus specifically on patient-related factors and their challenges. Patients with lower GI bleeding are excluded from this review.Recent findings: Patient factors that may be associated with a poor bowel preparation were searched for in the literature. With regard to patient’s characteristics, higher age, male gender, and socio-economic status (lower income, Medicaid, and lower education) were all associated with higher rates of inadequate bowel preparation. Comorbidities such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), in-patients, body mass index (BMI), cirrhosis, constipation, and neurological condition as well as some pharmacotherapy were also associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Studies identifying predictive patient factors as well as those studying these patients in particular showed variability in the strength of the patient factor associations. Patients taking tricyclic antidepressant, narcotics, and those with neurological conditions were identified to have a stronger association with worse bowel cleanliness. Those can be implemented with the current recommendations of split-dosing.Summary: Identifying individual factors that can impact the quality of bowel cleanliness can be challenging. Some have been well-studied in the literature such as age, in-patient status, or constipation and others such as male gender or higher BMI have required more studies to clearly conclude on any possible association. In many studies, simple recommendations like walking 30 min during the preparation, and additional instructions or support have also been added to instructions to improve motility and compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To compare two regimens of reduced bowel preparation and faecal tagging for CT colonography. Materials and methods: Single centre, prospective, randomized, noninferiority study, in which 52 consecutive adults underwent routine CT colonography. Patients, following a three-day low-fibre diet, received one of the two reduced preparations: 1-L polyethylene glycol and four tablets of bisacodyl in association with 90 mL of Iopamidol for faecal tagging administered on the same day as CTC examination (group 1); or a standard "iodine-only" preparation, consisting in 180 ml of Iopamidol the day before the examination (group 2). Primary outcome was the overall quality of bowel preparation. Results: Twenty-six patients per group were included. Per segment analysis showed preparation of diagnostic quality in 97.4 % of segments in group 1 and in 95.5 % in group 2 ( p = ns). Per-patient analysis showed optimal quality of preparation in 76.9 % of patients in group 1 and in 84.6 % in group 2 ( p = ns). Patient tolerability to both preparations was not different. Conclusion: A limited bowel preparation consisting of 1-L PEG and four tablets of bisacodyl in association with 90 mL of Iodine for faecal tagging administered on the same day as CTC examination is feasible and offers bowel cleansing comparable to "iodine-only" preparation. Key Points: • Low-dose PEG bisacodyl and Iopamidol preparation is feasible, providing adequate bowel cleansing. • Faecal tagging is not different from the two limited preparations. • Patient tolerability to the two colon cleansing regimens is similar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Introducing colonoscopy as part of colorectal cancer screening on a national level, we aimed at evaluating the efficacy of the two most common bowel cleansing agents, Moviprep and Phosphoral. Secondly, we evaluated the benefit for the patient and society in terms of sick leave and discomfort. Methods: In a single-blinded randomized equivalence trial, Phosphoral (NaP) was compared with Moviprep (2 l polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid) in patients undergoing colonoscopy due to suspicion of cancer. Patients filled out questionnaires concerning stool consistency, discomfort and number of sick days due to bowel cleansing. Blinded colonoscopists estimated the efficiency of the cleansing using the validated Harefield Cleansing Scale. Results: Two hundred and sixty-six patients were included 250 of whom underwent full colonoscopy. There was no difference in the percentage of acceptable bowel cleansings in the two groups; however, a significantly higher number of A scores were observed in the Moviprep group ( p = 0.028). We found no correlation between stool consistency and outcome of the cleansing and no difference in subjective discomfort during cleansing. Vomiting during cleansing occurred more often in the Phosphoral group ( p = 0.002). There was a trend toward a smaller number of sick days in patients who used Moviprep compared with Phosphoral. Conclusions: Moviprep and Phosphoral provided equally efficient bowel cleansing in 90 % of patients, but Moviprep provided a higher quality of cleansings graded as successful. The two agents were equally tolerated, and no difference was found in the related number of sick days. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the study was to test the tagging performance and patient's acceptance of a reduced cathartic preparation, based on iodixanol and PEG, administered to patients 3 h before the exam. One hundred and thirty-two asymptomatic patients were enrolled. As colonic cleansing we used PEG macrogol 3350. For fluid tagging iodixanol was orally administered 3 h before the exam, in a total dose of 50 mL mixed with 34.8 g of PEG in 750 mL of water. Image's review showed 446 segments (56.4%) clean of feces and 346 segments (43.6%) with feces. Untagged fluid was observed in 74/706 (10.5%) segments; inhomogeneous tagging in 129/706 (16%); the average density of fluid was 1054.74 UH in the cecum-ascending colon and 905.14 UH in the descending-sigmoid colon; the average difference of density between right and left colonic segments was 149 UH, and it was statistically significant (P = 0.016). No side effects related to the consumption of Movicol were reported. Very few side effects related to the tagging solution were reported: mild nausea in 7 (0.05%) patients, mild diarrhea in 10 (0.07%). An average rank of 9 points (SD +/- 1) on a 10-point scale (10 = no discomfort, 0 = severe discomfort) resulted from the self-administered questionnaire, showing an excellent acceptance of the preparation. Same day fluid tagging with iodixanol provides an optimal fluid tagging, it is completely tolerated by the patient, and it can be performed under medical control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute phosphate nephropathy after bowel preparation with oral sodium phosphate (OSP) for colonoscopy has emerged as an important clinical entity. In 2004, five cases of nephrocalcinosis and irreversible renal failure after bowel preparation with OSP were reported. More recently, several retrospective studies have shown that the incidence of acute kidney injury after OSP use is in the range of 1-4%, similar to the incidence of contrast nephropathy in the general population. The degree of renal failure is not generally as severe as in the first reported cases, but irreversible damage can still occur. Millions of people worldwide undergo screening colonoscopies for colon and rectal cancer after the age of 50, so careful patient selection and monitoring for possible complications is essential when OSP is used. In addition to educating patients about the possibility of renal damage, physicians should routinely watch for considerable weight loss during bowel preparation and correct the fluid deficit as needed. Carrying out a renal function panel, which includes serum phosphorus level, is prudent after colonoscopy. Alternative bowel cleansing agents are needed because calcium phosphate precipitation is inevitable after OSP use even in the normal kidney. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides information on oral sodium phosphate solution used in colorectal-cleansing. Recommenced colorectal cleansing regimen; Effectiveness of the solution as part of a colorectal cleansing regimen in patients preparing for colonoscopy; Recommended dosage and administration of oral sodium phosphate solution.

Oral sodium phosphate solution (Fleet® Phospho-soda®, Casen-Fleet® Fos-fosoda®) is a low-volume, hyperosmotic agent used as part of a colorectal-cleansing preparation for surgery, x-ray or endoscopic examination. The efficacy and tolerability of oral sodium phosphate solution was generally similar to, or significantly better than, that of polyethylene glycol (PEG) or other colorectal cleansing regimens in patients preparing for colonoscopy, colorectal surgery or other colorectal-related procedures. Generally, oral sodium phosphate solution was significantly more acceptable to patients than PEG or other regimens. The use of this solution should be considered in most patients (with the exception of those with contraindications) requiring colorectal cleansing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]