Bowel Preparation For Colonoscopy Research Articles

Constipation and colonoscopy

Constipation and colonoscopy

A smartphone application to enhance bowel preparation for first-time colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study.

Colonoscopy is an essential cancer screening tool; however, bowel preparation is a multifaceted process that involves several steps. Proper preparation is crucial for a successful colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic accuracy and procedural safety. We evaluated the performance of a smartphone application with bowel preparation instructions on individuals undergoing their first colonoscopy. In this randomized, prospective, endoscopist-blinded study, participants were scheduled to undergo their first colonoscopy between January 2020 and January 2022. The study protocol was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20190928002). They were randomly assigned to the smartphone education application (APP) or the standard education (control) group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were compared. Factors associated with excellent bowel preparation were also evaluated. In total, 119 patients (APP group, n = 57; control group, n = 62) underwent their first colonoscopy. The mean BBPS score and proportion of excellent bowel preparation (BBPS≥8) were significantly higher in the APP group than in the control group. Smartphone application-guided bowel preparation achieved a higher proportion of adequate and excellent bowel preparation scores, was associated with other quality indicators, and achieved the target ADR, cecal intubation rate, and adequate withdrawal time. This application may be a user-friendly option to improve the first-time colonoscopy experience, resulting in effective screening of colorectal cancer. The study protocol was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20190928002).

Bilateral acute anterior uveitis associated with MiraLAX bowel prep

Drug-induced uveitis is vision-threatening and has been associated with various bioactive molecules. Here, we discuss a potential association between a polyethylene glycol 3350-based osmotic laxative, also known as MiraLAX, and bilateral anterior uveitis. We present a case of a 52-year-old gentleman with no significant medical history and a past ocular history of dry eye syndrome, who developed an anaphylactic reaction and acute but mild bilateral anterior uveitis after recent MiraLAX bowel preparation for a screening colonoscopy. Screening for medical problems was otherwise unremarkable. The patient responded well to topical steroids. We aim to raise awareness of the potential association between MiraLAX and uveitis to prevent vision loss.

Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension Worsen Bowel Preparation for Screening Colonoscopy.

Colonoscopy is a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure that reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality but requires adequate bowel cleansing for high-quality examination. Past studies have suggested cirrhosis as a risk factor for worse bowel preparation. We carried out a match-controlled retrospective study evaluating patients with and without cirrhosis who underwent outpatient screening colonoscopies to assess the effect of cirrhosis and portal hypertension complications on preparation quality and endoscopic measures. We also did a subgroup analysis excluding patients with obesity. We examined 1464 patients with cirrhosis and matched controls. Cirrhotic patients had lower mean Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores and slower cecal intubation times. We found a single point increase in the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, as well as ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, and variceal hemorrhage were all associated with a longer cecal intubation time. Subgroup analysis excluding patients with obesity again found a significantly lower BBPS score and longer cecal intubation time while also finding a 24% drop in polyp detection. Patients with cirrhosis have worse BBPS scores and longer cecal intubation times. Nonobese cirrhotic patients additionally have a lower polyp detection rate. Portal hypertension complications were associated with worsened preparation quality and longer cecal intubation times. Each incremental increase in MELD score lengthened cecal intubation time. These findings support a more aggressive bowel preparation strategy for patients with cirrhosis, especially patients with severe disease or portal hypertension complications.

Efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowel preparation for pediatric elective colonoscopy: Phase 3 RCT.

Background and study aims Currently available polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based preparations continue to represent a challenge in children. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG preparation with a conventional PEG-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) in children and adolescents. Patients and methods This was a multicenter, randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial, where patients were randomized between PMF104 (Clensia) and a conventional PEG-ES (Klean-Prep), and stratified by age stratum (2 to <6; 6 to < 12;12 to <18 years). The primary endpoint was to test the non-inferiority of PMF104 versus PEG-ES, in terms of colon cleansing. Safety, tolerability, acceptability, palatability, and compliance were also assessed. Efficacy endpoints were analyzed in the per protocol set (PPS) and full analysis set (FAS) and safety and tolerability endpoints in the safety set (SAF). Results Of the 356 patients enrolled, 258 were included in the PPS, 346 in the FAS, and 351 in the SAF. Non-inferiority of PMF104 was confirmed for children aged > 6 years and for all age groups in PPS and FAS, respectively. Optimal compliance was reported more frequently in the PMF104 than in the PEG-ES group, in both PPS (86.1% vs. 68.4%) and FAS (82.9% vs. 65.3%). Both preparations were equally safe and tolerable. Palatability and acceptability were considered better in the PMF104 group than in the PEG-ES group (27.1% vs. 15.3% and 15.3% vs. 3.5%, respectively). Conclusions In children aged 6 to 17 years, the new low-volume product PMF104 is non-inferior to the reference PEG-ES in terms of bowel cleansing, safety, and tolerability, with slightly better results in compliance, palatability, and acceptability.

Smartphone Application Versus Standard Instruction for Colonoscopic Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

To compare smartphone application (Colonoscopic Preparation) instructions versus paper instructions for bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Adhering to bowel preparation instructions is important to ensure a high-quality colonoscopy. This randomized controlled trial included individuals undergoing colonoscopy at a tertiary care hospital. Individuals were randomized (1:1) to receive instructions through a smartphone application or traditional paper instructions. The primary outcome was the quality of the bowel preparation as measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Score. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation and polyp detection. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a previously developed questionnaire. A total of 238 individuals were randomized (n = 119 in each group), with 202 available for the intention-to-treat analysis (N = 97 in the app group and 105 in the paper group). The groups had similar demographics, indications for colonoscopy, and type of bowel preparation. The primary outcome (Boston Bowel Preparation Score) demonstrated no difference between groups (Colonoscopic Preparation app mean: 7.26 vs paper mean: 7.28, P = 0.91). There was no difference in cecal intubation (P = 0.37), at least one polyp detected (P = 0.43), or the mean number of polyps removed (P = 0.11). A higher proportion strongly agreed or agreed that they would use the smartphone app compared with paper instructions (89.4% vs 70.1%, P = 0.001). Smartphone instructions performed similarly to traditional paper instructions for those willing to use the application. Local patient preferences need to be considered before making changes in the method of delivery of medical instructions.

Oral Sulfate Solution Versus Polyethylene Glycol Solution for Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Randomised Controlled Trial in a Tertiary Care Centre

Colonoscopy is an indispensable procedure in the armamentarium of an endoscopist to diagnose the pathologies of the distal gastrointestinal tract. A well-prepared bowel is mandatory for an ideal colonoscopy which facilitates in clinching the diagnosis. The aim of the study was to compare the palatability, tolerance, volume and side effects of PEG solution as well as OSS for bowel preparation and also to assess the quality of bowel preparation using Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by the colonoscopist in a controlled, randomised, and double- blinded manner.

Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate tablet vs. polyethylene glycol and ascorbate for bowel preparation in children.

Bowel preparation for pediatric colonoscopy presents several challenges. However, no bowel preparation regimen is universally preferred for children. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of oral sulfate tablet (OST) in pediatric bowel preparation. This study retrospectively analyzed data from children who received 2l of polyethylene glycol and ascorbate (PEG/Asc) or OST for bowel preparation between 2021 and 2023. A comparative analysis was conducted between the two groups. A total of 146 patients were included (2l PEG/Asc: 115, 73.0% vs. OST: 31). No significant difference was observed in the total BBPS score (median 8.0 vs. 8.0, P = 0.152) and the total OBPS score (median 5.0 vs. 3.0, P = 0.152) between the two groups. No significant difference was noted in the ratio of a bubble score of 0 (73.0% vs. 93.5%, P = 0.132). The incidence of abdominal pain was significantly lower in the OST group (32.2% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.002). The VAS score for overall satisfaction was significantly higher in the OST group (4.0 vs. 7.0, P < 0.001). For the next colonoscopy bowel preparation, a higher proportion of patients in the OST group showed a willingness to use the same preparation regimen (33.9% vs. 83.9%, P < 0.001). OST was as efficacious and safe as 2 L of PEG/Asc for pediatric bowel preparation. The satisfaction level was higher with OST than with 2 L of PEG/Asc. OST may be considered a good alternative for children with poor compliance during bowel preparation.

Comparison of Objectively Assessed Versus Patient-Reported Clarity of Last Rectal Effluent for the Prediction of Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Case-Control Study.

Colonoscopy is a crucial procedure for various clinical purposes, including screening for colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel preparation is essential for its success. Poor bowel preparation can lead to bad outcomes. An objective assessment of bowel preparation quality is typically only possible after the colonoscope is inserted. This study aimed to objectively correlate the clarity of last rectal effluent, directly collected in a transparent container, with the quality of bowel preparation, and compare it with patient-reported descriptions. This prospective, single-centre, case-control study obtained ethical clearance and included patients aged >18 years undergoing colonoscopies. Cases included patients who collected the last rectal effluent and took photographs, while controls relied on verbal descriptions. Data collected included demographics, clinical information, bowel preparation quality, and lastly, stool clarity. A statistical analysis was performed to identify correlations and associations. Of the 70 included patients, 45 were male. The mean age was 35.8 ± 14.3 years. Cases had a higher mean age (37.8 ± 14.6). A higher number of cases had comorbidities (11, 68.8%). Photographic recording of the last rectal effluent was not associated with the adequacy of bowel preparation. Thin yellow fluid was the most common last-rectal effluent clarity (33, 47.1%). Thin, clear fluid was significantly associated with adequate bowel preparation. Objective assessment of last rectal effluent clarity correlates with the quality of bowel preparation. This can improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopies and potentially reduce the need for repeat procedures, contributing to better patient outcomes and cost savings in healthcare systems.

P749 Comparison of bowel preparations for colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease- A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

Abstract Background Colonoscopy is important in the management inflammatory bowel disease. Adequate bowel preparation (IBD) is a prerequisite for colonoscopy and may be difficult to achieve in setting of IBD Methods We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials of various bowel preparations used before colonoscopy in IBD. Various electronic databases were searched to identify eligible studies. A frequentist network meta-analysis was done to compare the effectiveness of various bowel preparations. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. Other outcomes were assessed qualitatively. Results We included 7 trials including 960 patients. All bowel preparation had a similar effectiveness of bowel preparation as compared to 4 litres of polyethylene glycol (PEG) (OR when compared with PEG4L: OSS- 1.1043 95% CI 0.6553-1.8610; PEG/Ascorbate 2L- 0.9838, 0.6519-1.4848; PEG 1L -1.0011, 0.5522-1.8150; PEG2L plus bisacodyl -1.0864, 0.7130-1.6554; PEG 4L plus simethicone -1.0069, 0.6721-1.5084; PEG/SPMC 1.5L -0.9966, 0.5569-1.7835; SPMC 2L -1.0996, 0.6123-1.9745 had a similar effectiveness. Low-volume preparations had better compliance, tolerance, and acceptance, and willingness to repeat. No difference in additional outcomes like change in disease activity after colonoscopy, procedure-related outcome after colonoscopy like cecal intubation rate, and change in electrolyte levels were found. Conclusion Various bowel preparations had similar effectiveness in respect to colonoscopy preparation in IBD patients. Low-volume preparations have better compliance, tolerance, and acceptance. The systematic review was limited by a small number of included RCTs.

Research Progress of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

Research Progress of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

Effectiveness and safety of Shankhaprakshalana-a yogic technique-in bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A retrospective study.

Shankhaprakshalana (SP) is a yogic method aiming to cleanse the bowel. It involves the use of warm saline water and a combination of five asanas. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness and safety of bowel preparation by SP. This is a retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data. Patients planned for colonoscopy were screened and enrolled to undergo bowel preparation by SP on the day of the colonoscopy. Patients having comorbid conditions, poor performance status, suspected or previously diagnosed intestinal stricture and past history of major abdominal surgery and those unable to perform asanas of SP were excluded. A low-fiber diet was advised for one day before the colonoscopy. Patients were advised to drink 400mL of lukewarm saline water followed by five asanas (exercises) of SP, each done eight times dynamically and sequentially. After completing six such cycles, patients underwent colonoscopy. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score was used to assess the quality of bowel preparation. Total 238 patients were included. The major indications for colonoscopy were abdominal pain (35.3%), hematochezia (23.9%), diarrhea (20.2%), constipation (10.9%) and anemia (9.7%). The mean age was 37.7 (± 12) years. The mean BBPS was 8 (± 1.2). Bowel preparation was inadequate (BBPS < 6) in only two patients. Mean segmental BBPS for the three segments of the colon (right, transverse and left) was 2.6 (± 0.5), 2.7 (± 0.4) and 2.6 (± 0.7), respectively. Minor adverse events (nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting, giddiness and bloating) were noted in 10 participants (4.2%), which did not require hospitalization. Bowel preparation was completed in 133 (± 35) minutes. Shankhaprakshalana is an effective and safe method to achieve adequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Since this is a single-center and retrospective study, future multi-centric, prospective studies comparing it with the standard bowel preparation regimens are warranted.

Problems of bowel preparation for colonoscopy (review)

Inadequate bowel preparation leads to wasting work time and losing clinic and patients money. it puts patients at additional risk which is associated with repeat colonoscopy and potential complications. А critical review of the current literature has been performed to develop an individual preparation algorithms for high risk patients. The search was done in PubMed and E-library databases using the keywords: «Colonoscopy», «Colon cleaning», «Bowel», «Quality of colonoscopy», «colonoscopy», «preparation». CONCLUSION: an individualised scheme of preparation for colonoscopy looks to be promising. An additional improving result of the colonoscopy can be achieved with the patients training — information brochure, videos or text messages.

3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to 2 L polyethylene glycol in colonoscopic bowel preparation in relatively high-BMI (≥ 24 kg/m2) individuals: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BackgroundWhether body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for poor bowel preparation is controversial, and the optimal bowel preparation regimen for people with a high BMI is unclear.MethodsWe prospectively included 710 individuals with high BMIs (≥ 24 kg/m2) who were scheduled to undergo colonoscopy from January to November 2021 at 7 hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated into 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) group (n=353) and 2 L PEG group (n=357). The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation, and the secondary outcomes included Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, polyp detection rate, cecal intubation rate, and adverse reactions during bowel preparation. Furthermore, we did exploratory subgroup analyses for adequate bowel preparation.ResultsAfter enrollment, 15 individuals didn’t undergo colonoscopy, finally 345 participants took 3 L split-dose PEG regimen, and 350 participants took 2 L PEG regimen for colonoscopic bowel preparation. 3 L split-dose PEG regimen was superior to 2 L PEG regimen in the rate of adequate bowel preparation (81.2% vs. 74.9%, P = 0.045), BBPS score (6.71±1.15 vs. 6.37±1.31, P < 0.001), and the rate of polyp detection (62.0% vs. 52.9%, P = 0.015). The cecal intubation rate was similar in both groups (99.7%). Regarding adverse reactions, individuals were more likely to feel nausea in the 3 L PEG group (30.9% vs. 19.3%; P = 0.001); however, the degree was mild. In the subgroup analysis for adequate bowel preparation, 3 L split-dose PEG regimen performed better than 2 L PEG regimen in the overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2 ) (P = 0.006) and individuals with constipation (P = 0.044), while no significant differences were observed in relatively normal (BMI 24-24.9 kg/m2) (P = 0.593) and obese individuals (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) (P = 0.715).Conclusions3 L split-dose PEG regimen is superior to 2 L PEG regimen for colonoscopic Bowel Preparation in relatively high-BMI individuals, especially overweight individuals (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2 ).Trial RegistrationThis trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR2000039068). The date of first registration, 15/10/2020, http://www.chictr.org.cn

Telephone instructions improve the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

To evaluate the effect of telephone instructions on the quality of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Online English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) were screened for randomized controlled trials on telephone instructions regarding bowel preparation for colonoscopy from inception to April 15, 2022. After data extraction, the Review Manager software was used for meta-analysis. Nine randomized controlled trials with 3,836 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the telephone group than in the control group. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.30, P < 0.01). The pooled mean difference (MD) for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was 1.32 (95% CI: 0.15-2.49, P < 0.05), and that for the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale score was -1.93 (95% CI: -2.35 to -1.51, P < 0.01). The polyp detection rate was significantly higher in the telephone group than in the control group (RR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.23-2.04, P < 0.01), whereas no significant difference was noted in the adenoma detection rate between the groups (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 0.97-1.94, P = 0.08). Telephone instructions for patients undergoing colonoscopy significantly improved the quality of bowel preparation and increased polyp detection rate.

Is bowel preparation necessary for early colonoscopy in patients with suspected colonic diverticular bleeding?: A multicenter retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis.

There are few reports on bowel preparation for early colonoscopy in patients with suspected colonic diverticular bleeding (CDB). We aim to clarify in a retrospective, multicenter study. In a multicenter retrospective cohort study at 10 institutions, we analyzed clinical features of patients diagnosed with CDB, who underwent early colonoscopy within 24h. We compared patients who were prepared with polyethylene glycol lavage (PEL) and those without PEL. We evaluated the effects of PEL for early colonoscopy in patients with suspected CDB. A total of 129 (53%) underwent under preparation with PEL and 113 patients without PEL. The PEL group was younger, had fewer comorbidities, and had better performance status. After adjusting for these variables with propensity score matching, the PEL group had a significantly shorter hospital stay (7.9±4.7 vs. 10.1±5.2 days; p=0.001), and a higher cecal intubation rate (91.1% vs. 50.0%; p<0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse event rates, identification of stigmata of recent hemorrhage, or frequency in endoscopic hemostatic treatment. PEL may be preferred for early colonoscopy in patients suspected of having CDB.

Effect of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

Inadequate bowel preparation can result in decreased diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic safety of colonoscopy for colon cancer screening. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) has been used to assess the quality of bowel preparation. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) are commonly used medications for diabetes mellitus and obesity that are known to delay gastrointestinal motility. We hypothesized that the use of GLP-1RA would be associated with decreased quality of bowel preparation. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at a large academic medical center between December 2021 and December 2022. We included patients taking any GLP-1RA for diabetes or obesity during colonoscopy defined as our cases, and patients who were prescribed GLP-1RA at one point but not within 3 months of colonoscopy defined as our controls. We excluded patients on any promotility or antimotility agents and those without BBPS recorded on their procedure report. Independent t test assessed statistical differences in the case and control groups to compare the quality of bowel preparation for continuous variables, and the χ 2 test was used for categorical variables. Multivariate linear regression including diabetes as a covariate was also performed for continuous variables, and multivariate logistic regression was performed for categorical variables. A total of 446 patients were included in the study, comprising 265 (59%) cases and 181 controls (41%). There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline except for the diagnosis of diabetes ( P = 0.001) with a higher proportion of patients with diabetes in the cases. The mean BBPS was significantly higher in controls (7.0 ± 1.9 vs 7.5 ± 2.4, P = 0.046) when controlling for diabetes. The percentage of patients with a total BBPS score of <5 was significantly higher in cases (15.5% vs 6.6%, P = 0.01). The proportion of patients who required a repeat colonoscopy due to poor bowel preparation was also significantly higher in cases (18.9% vs 11.1%, P = 0.041). The use of GLP-1RA was associated with a statistically significantly lower quality of bowel preparation, with additional clinical significance given a notable difference in the need for a repeat colonoscopy. It will be essential to understand the cumulative effect of medications that may delay gastric emptying on the quality of bowel preparation to better understand the appropriate measures and counseling that need to be taken before undergoing outpatient colonoscopies.

High volume, low volume, or pills, which way should we go? a review of bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Purpose of review Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of adult cancer-related deaths in the United States. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for CRC screening. Adequate bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy is essential for good visualization, which results in higher polyp detection rates and shorter procedural times. Achieving adequate preparation prior to colonoscopy is accomplished approximately 75% of the time. This review covers current recommendations and recent updates in bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Recent findings Split-dose bowel preparation is recommended, but recent studies show that same day, low-volume preparations are noninferior. Low-volume polyethylene glycol with electrolytes + ascorbic acid can achieve high-quality bowel preparation and 1-day, low-residue diets prior to colonoscopy, particularly prepackaged low-residue diets, can lead to better outcomes. Utilizing visual aids and artificial intelligence in the form of smartphone applications and quality prediction systems can also lead to higher rates of bowel preparation adequacy. Summary An individualized approach should be used to decide on the best preparation option for patients. Lower volume, same day preparations are available and lead to better patient tolerability and compliance, along with less stringent precolonoscopy diets. Smartphone applications and artificial intelligence will allow us to better educate and guide patients with regards to following preparation instructions.

What Is the Optimal Bowel Preparation for Capsule Colonoscopy and Pan-intestinal Capsule Endoscopy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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

S1615 Impact of Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension on Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation

S1615 Impact of Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension on Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation