Search

Background and Aims: Colonoscopy is extremely important for the identification and removal of precancerous polyps. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy is essential for adequate visualization. Traditionally, patients have been instructed to consume only clear liquids the day before a colonoscopy. However, recent studies have suggested using a low-residue diet, with varying results. We evaluated the outcomes of patients undergoing colonoscopy who consumed a clear liquid diet (CLD) versus low-residue diet (LRD) on the day before colonoscopy by a meta-analysis., Methods: Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, and CINAHL were searched (February 2015). Studies involving adult patients undergoing colonoscopy examination and comparing LRD with CLD on the day before colonoscopy were included. The analysis was conducted by using the Mantel-Haenszel or DerSimonian and Laird models with the odds ratio (OR) to assess adequate bowel preparations, tolerability, willingness to repeat diet and preparation, and adverse effects., Results: Nine studies (1686 patients) were included. Patients consuming an LRD compared with a CLD demonstrated significantly higher odds of tolerability (OR 1.92; 95% CI, 1.36-2.70; P < .01) and willingness to repeat preparation (OR 1.86; 95% CI, 1.34-2.59; P < .01) with no differences in adequate bowel preparations (OR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.64-2.28; P = .58) or adverse effects (OR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.35; P = .57)., Conclusion: An LRD before colonoscopy resulted in improved tolerability by patients and willingness to repeat preparation with no differences in preparation quality and adverse effects., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a very popular bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its large volume may reduce patient compliance, resulting in suboptimal preparation. Recently, a combination of Miralax and Gatorade has been studied in various randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as a lower volume and more palatable bowel preparation. However, results have varied. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis assessing the use of Miralax-Gatorade (M-G) vs. PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy., Methods: Multiple databases were searched (January 2014). RCTs on adults comparing M-G (238-255 g in 1.9 l that is 64 fl oz) vs. PEG (3.8-4 l) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy were included. The effects were analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of quality of bowel preparation (satisfactory, unsatisfactory, excellent), patient tolerance (nausea, cramping, bloating), and polyp detection by using odds ratio (OR) with fixed- and random-effects models., Results: Five studies met inclusion criteria (N=1,418), with mean age ranging from 53.8 to 61.3 years. M-G demonstrated statistically significantly fewer satisfactory bowel preparations as compared with PEG (OR 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43-0.98, P=0.04) but more willingness to repeat preparation (OR 7.32; 95% CI: 4.88-10.98, P<0.01). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences in polyp detection (P=0.65) or side effects were apparent between the two preparations for nausea (P=0.71), cramping (P=0.84), or bloating (P=0.50). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results for split-dose M-G vs. split-dose PEG., Conclusions: M-G for bowel preparation before colonoscopy was inferior to PEG in bowel preparation quality while demonstrating no significant improvements in adverse effects or polyp detection. Therefore, PEG appears superior to M-G for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Background: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a commonly used bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Unfortunately, the standard large-volume solution may reduce patient compliance. Split-dosing of PEG has been studied in various randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). However, results have been conflicting., Objective: We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the role of split-dose PEG versus full-dose PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy., Design: Multiple databases were searched (January 2011). RCTs on adults comparing full-dose and split-dose of PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy were included and analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of quality of bowel preparation, preparation compliance, willingness to repeat the same preparation, and side effects by using odds ratio (OR) by fixed and random-effects models., Setting: Literature search., Patients: Per RCTs., Main Outcome Measurements: Satisfactory bowel preparation, willingness to repeat same bowel preparation, patient compliance, and side effects., Results: Five trials met inclusion criteria (N = 1232). Split-dose PEG significantly increased the number of satisfactory bowel preparations (OR 3.70; 95% CI, 2.79-4.91; P < .01) and willingness to repeat the same preparation (OR 1.76; 95% CI, 1.06-2.91; P = .03) compared with full-dose PEG. Split-dose PEG also significantly decreased the number of preparation discontinuations (OR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28-0.98; P = .04) and nausea (OR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-0.79; P < .01) compared with full-dose PEG., Limitations: Limited number of studies., Conclusions: The use of a split-dose PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy significantly improved the number of satisfactory bowel preparations, increased patient compliance, and decreased nausea compared with the full-dose PEG., (Copyright © 2011 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Music has been utilized as a therapeutic tool during colonoscopy, but various randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been inconsistent. We conducted a meta-analysis to analyze the effect of music on patients undergoing colonoscopy., Patients and Methods: Multiple medical databases were searched (12/06). Only RCTs on adult subjects that compared music versus no music during colonoscopy were included. Meta-analysis was analyzed for total procedure time, dose of sedative medications (midazolam and mepiridine), and patients' pain scores, experience, and willingness to repeat the same procedure in the future., Results: Eight studies (N = 712) met the inclusion criteria. Patients' overall experience scores (P < 0.01) were significantly improved with music. No significant differences were noted for patients' pain scores (P = 0.09), mean doses of midazolam (P = 0.10), mean doses of meperidine (P = 0.23), procedure times (P = 0.06), and willingness to repeat the same procedure in future (P = 0.10)., Conclusions: Music improves patients' overall experience with colonoscopy.

Aim: To evaluate the effect of relaxing music during colonoscopy under low-dose conscious sedation, on patient satisfaction, scope insertion time and procedure duration, medication doses, and the perceived adequacy of sedation and scope insertion difficulty on the part of the endoscopist., Methods: One hundred and sixty-seven consecutive adult outpatients presenting for routine colonoscopy under low-dose conscious sedation were randomized to undergo their procedures either with music played during the procedure or no music played., Results: There were no statistical differences between the two groups in terms of meperidine dose, midazolam dose, time to reach the cecum, total procedure time, endoscopist assessment of scope insertion difficulty, endoscopist assessment of adequacy of sedation, or the pain experience of the patients during their procedure. The music group did report significantly better overall procedure satisfaction as compared to the non music group on two of our three different scales., Conclusion: While music does not result in shortened procedure times, lower doses of sedative medications or perceived patient pain, the patients who have music playing during their procedures report modestly greater satisfaction with their procedures.

Background In an effort to improve visualization during colonoscopy, a transparent plastic cap or hood may be placed on the end of the colonoscope. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) has been studied and is thought to improve polyp detection. Numerous studies have been conducted comparing pertinent clinical outcomes between CAC and standard colonoscopy (SC) with inconsistent results. Methods Numerous databases were searched in November 2016. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult subjects that compared CAC to SC were included. Outcomes of total colonoscopy time, time to cecum, cecal intubation rate, terminal ileum intubation rate, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were analyzed in terms of odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with fixed effect and random effects models. Results Five hundred eighty-nine articles and abstracts were discovered. Of these, 23 RCTs (n=12,947) were included in the analysis. CAC showed statistically significant superiority in total colonoscopy time (MD -1.51 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.67 to -0.34; P<0.01) and time to cecum (MD -0.82 min; 95%CI -1.20 to -0.44; P<0.01) compared to SC. CAC also showed better PDR (OR 1.17; 95%CI 1.06-1.29; P<0.01) but not ADR (OR 1.11; 95%CI 0.95-1.30; P=0.20). In contrast, on sensitivity analysis, ADR was better with CAC. Terminal ileum intubation and cecal intubation rates demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.11 and P=0.73, respectively). Conclusions The use of a transparent cap during colonoscopy improves PDR while reducing procedure times. ADR may improve in cap-assisted colonoscopy but further studies are required to confirm this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colonoscopy is an important screening and therapeutic modality for colorectal cancer. Unlike other screening tests, colonoscopy is dependent on pre-procedure bowel preparation. If the bowel preparation is poor, significant pathology may be missed. Many factors are known to improve bowel preparation. This review will highlight those factors that may optimize the bowel preparation, including choice of bowel preparation, grading or scoring of the bowel preparation, special factors that influence preparation, and diet prior to colonoscopy that affects bowel preparation. The aim of the review is to offer suggestions and guide endoscopists on how to optimize the bowel preparation for the patients undergoing colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]