Polyethylene Glycol Bowel Preparation Research Articles

Prospective, randomized study comparing two different regimens of split-dose polyethylene glycol and their effect on endoscopic outcomes

BackgroundDifferent split regimens of polyethylene glycol are routinely used and no guidelines are available to select an optimal protocol of ingestion. This study aims to compare the efficacy and side effect profile of two different regimens of polyethylene glycol bowel preparation solution: PEG (3 + 1) vs. PEG (2 + 2).Methods240 patients above the age of 18 years were included in the study between June 1st and November 31st, 2023. Patients were randomly assigned either to Group A, consisting of 115 patients receiving a 3 L of PEG the night before the colonoscopy, and 1 L the same morning of the procedure. Or to group B, where 125 patients ingested 2 L the night before the procedure, and the remaining 2 L the same morning. The cleansing efficacy was evaluated by the attending endoscopist using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, through a score assigned for each segment of the colon (0–3). Side effects, tolerability, and willingness to retake the same preparation were listed by an independent investigator using a questionnaire administered before the procedure.ResultsA higher percentage of patients had gastric fullness with the 3 + 1 vs. 2 + 2 preparation (58.3% vs. 31.2%; p <.001). A higher Boston bowel preparation score was seen in patients who took the 2 + 2 vs. 3 + 1 preparation (7.87 vs. 7.23). Using the 2 + 2 preparation was significantly associated with higher Boston bowel preparation scores vs. the 3 + 1 preparation (OR = 1.37, p =.001, 95% CI 1.14, 1.64). After adjustment over other variables (age, gender, comorbidities, previous abdominal surgeries, presence of adenoma, and time between last dose and colonoscopy), results remained the same (aOR = 1.34, p =.003, 95% CI 1.10, 1.62).ConclusionWhile both (2 + 2) and (3 + 1) regimens of polyethylene glycol are a good choice for a successful colonoscopy, we recommend the use of (2 + 2) regimen for its superior efficacy in bowel cleansing.

Comparing Low Volume Versus Conventional Volume of Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation during Colonoscopy: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution is widely used as a colonoscopic bowel cleaning agent, although some patients are intolerant due to the need for ingesting large solution volumes and unpleasant taste. A low-volume solution may enhance patient tolerability and compliance in bowel preparation. Accordingly, this study compared the effectiveness of two difference PEG volumes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in terms of bowel cleanliness, completeness of colonoscopy, patient tolerability and colonoscopy duration. Using a prospective randomised controlled single-blinded study design, 164 patients scheduled for colonoscopy were allocated to two groups (n = 82 patients in each) to receive either the conventional PEG volume (3 L, control group) or the low volume (2 L, intervention group). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), a validated scale for assessing bowel cleanliness during colonoscopy, was used to score bowel cleanliness in three colon segments. Secondarily, colonoscopy completeness, tolerability to drinking PEG and the duration of colonoscopy were compared between the groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the two intervention groups in terms of bowel cleanliness (P = 0.119), colonoscopy completion (P = 0.535), tolerability (P = 0.190) or the amount of sedation/analgesia required (midazolam, P = 0.162; pethidine, P = 0.708). Only the duration of colonoscopy differed between the two groups (longer duration in the control group, P = 0.039). Low-volume (2 L) PEG is as effective as the standard 3 L solution in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy; however, the superiority of either solution could not be established.

The safety and effects of high- and low-volume polyethylene glycol bowel preparation methods before colonoscopy on bowel cleanliness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although both high- and low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) are widely used in intestinal preparation before colonoscopy, there is still controversy over the superiority of their cleaning effects. This meta-analysis sought to explore the safety and effects of high-volume PEG solution and low-volume PEG mixed solution on intestinal cleanliness before colonoscopy. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to retrieve relevant articles on the effects of high- and low-volume PEG mixture solutions on intestinal cleanliness from the inception of the databases to October 15, 2022. Two independent researchers screened the literature according to the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and extracted the required data separately. A bias risk assessment was conducted for each study using the relevant tools in the Cochrane Handbook. The included data were subjected to a meta-analysis using R 4.2.1 software. This article includes a total of 15 studies involving a total of 5,847 patients. There was no difference in the cleanliness score, qualified rate of intestinal cleanliness and patient compliance between the high- and low-volume group. The patients in the low-volume PEG mixed solution group had a higher repeat willingness bowel cleansing rate than those in the high-volume PEG group [risk ratio (RR) =0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62-0.82, P<0.01]. Compared with the low-volume group, the incidence of adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain increased in the high-volume group (RR =1.38, 95% CI: 1.22-1.56, P<0.01; RR =1.79, 95% CI: 1.41-2.27, P<0.01; RR =1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.08, P<0.01). In the pre-colonoscopy preparation method for patients, although the high-volume PEG and low-volume PEG mixed regimen have similar effects on intestinal cleanliness, the low-volume mixed regimen has a higher willingness to repeat and a lower incidence of adverse reactions. In clinical practice, considering patient compliance and safety, a low-volume mixed regimen may be a more optimal option.

2L polyethylene glycol combined with castor oil versus 4L polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy among inpatients.

Inpatients are more likely to have inadequate bowel preparation compared to outpatients. Although experts recommend 4L split polyethylene glycol (PEG) preparation, bowel preparation with castor oil (CaO) was recently found to reduce the volume of solution required. The aim of the study was to evaluate the cleansing effect and safety of 2L-PEG with Cao in bowel preparation among inpatients. Our study retrospectively analyzed the medical records and colonoscopy reports of inpatients (n = 1251) who underwent colonoscopy in the Affiliated Changzhou No.2 People Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, and the inpatients were divided into 2L-PEG-CaO and 4L-PEG group according to different bowel preparation protocols. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) is used to assess bowel preparation efficacy before colonoscopy. Furthermore, we also calculated other outcomes, such as polyp or adenoma detection rates and adverse events. A total of 1251 patients undergoing colonoscopy were included in this study, 738 were taken 4L-PEG and 513 2L-PEG-CaO. Both inpatients groups were matched for baseline characteristics. The 2L-PEG-CaO group was significantly higher than the 4L-PEG group on both BBPS (7.26 ± 1.75 vs 7.06 ± 1.58, P = .043) and adequate bowel cleansing rates (83.2% vs 77.4%, P = .011). Regarding adverse events, the 4L-PEG group was significantly higher than the 2L-PEG-CaO group on the incidence of abdominal fullness (6.4% vs 9.6%, P = .045) and adverse events (33.7% vs 28.5%, P = .048). The 2L split PEG with CaO preparation increased quality of bowel cleansing and improved tolerance in inpatients. Bowel preparation with 2L-PEG-CaO is suitable alternative to traditional 4L split PEG bowel preparation for colonoscopy of inpatients.

Gut microbiota in children with split-dose bowel preparations revealed by metagenomics.

Split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) is routinely used for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. This study aimed to investigate the composition of gut microbiota and its functions in pediatric patients undergoing split-dose PEG bowel preparation for colonoscopy to understand the stability and resilience of gut microbiota. From September to December 2021, 19 pediatric patients were enrolled at Shenzhen Children's Hospital and 76 samples (4 time points) were analyzed using metagenomics. Time points included Time_1 (one day before bowel preparation), Time_2 (one day after colonoscopy), Time_3 (two weeks after bowel preparation), and Time_4 (four weeks after bowel preparation). Alpha diversity comparison at both the species and gene levels showed a decrease in community richness after colonoscopy, with little statistical significance. However, the Shannon diversity index significantly decreased (P<0.05) and gradually returned to pre-preparation levels at two weeks after bowel preparation. The genus level analysis showed six genera (Eubacterium, Escherichia, Intertinibacter, Veillonella, Ruminococcaceae unclassified, and Coprobacillus) significantly different across the four time periods. Additionally, at the species level, the abundance of Escherichia coli, Bacteroides fragilis, and Veillonella parvula significantly increased at one day after colonoscopy before gradually decreasing at two weeks after bowel preparation. In contrast, the abundance of Intertinibacter bartlettii decreased at one day after colonoscopy but then recovered at two weeks after bowel preparation, reaching the preoperative level at four weeks after bowel preparation. Furthermore, five functional pathways (base excision repair, biosynthesis of ansamycins, biosynthesis of siderophore group nonribosomal peptide, flavonoid biosynthesis, and biosynthesis of type II polyketide products) were significantly different across the four time periods, with recovery at two weeks after bowel preparation and reaching preoperative levels at four weeks after bowel preparation. Gut microbiota at the genus level, species level, and functional pathways are impacted in pediatric patients undergoing split-dose PEG bowel preparation and colonoscopy, with recovery two weeks following bowel preparation. However, the phylum level was not impacted. Modifications in gut microbiota composition and function may be investigated in future studies of bowel preparation. This study highlights the stability and resilience of gut microbiota among pediatric patients during bowel preparation.

SPLIT-DOSE BOWEL PREPARATION IS SUPERIOR TO STRAIGHT-DOSE IN HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS UNDERGOING INPATIENT COLONOSCOPY.

There is a two-fold higher rate of failed colonoscopy secondary to inadequate bowel preparation among hospitalized versus ambulatory patients. Split-dose bowel preparation is widely used in the outpatient setting but has not been generally adapted for use among the inpatient population. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of split versus single dose polyethylene glycol bowel (PEG) preparation for inpatient colonoscopies and determine additional procedural and patient characteristics that drive inpatient colonoscopy quality. A retrospective cohort study was performed on 189 patients who underwent inpatient colonoscopy and received 4 liters PEG as either split- or straight-dose during a 6-month period in 2017 at an academic medical center. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), Aronchick Score, and reported adequacy of preparation. Bowel preparation was reported as adequate in 89% of the split-dose group versus 66% in the straight-dose group (P=0.0003). Inadequate bowel preparations were documented in 34.2% of the single-dose group and 10.7% of the split-dose group (P<0.001). Only 40% of patients received split-dose PEG. Mean BBPS was significantly lower in the straight-dose group (Total: 6.32 vs 7.73, P<0.001). Split-dose bowel preparation is superior to straight-dose preparation across reportable quality metrics for non-screening colonoscopies and was readily performed in the inpatient setting. Interventions should be targeted at shifting the culture of gastroenterologist prescribing practices towards use of split-dose bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy.

S2505 Holy Cow! When Cecal “Polypectomy” Specimen Shows Cow’s Liver

Introduction: Patients with history of colon tubular adenomas need surveillance colonoscopies to decrease the risk of colon neoplasia. Sometimes, contamination of polypectomy specimen with ingested food can create confusion while interpreting the results. We present an interesting case of a cecal "polypectomy" specimen that showed liver tissue, that on further investigation was attributed to a cow's liver that the patient ingested the day before his procedure. Case Description/Methods: A 72-year-old White male with past medical history of colon tubular adenomas, chronic constipation, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea and class III obesity was referred for surveillance colonoscopy. His constipation was well-controlled with linaclotide 72 mcg daily. He did not report any hematochezia or weight loss. His physical examination including vital signs and abdominal examination was unremarkable. Colonoscopy was performed after a 4-liter polyethylene glycol bowel preparation which revealed 3 polyps. These included a 5 mm Paris 0-1s polyp which was removed via cold snare polypectomy (Figure A), and 2 2 mm sessile polyps in the ascending and descending colon (removed via biopsy forceps). The ascending and descending colon polyps were tubular adenomas on histological examination. We were notified by the reading pathologist that the cecal "polyp" showed liver tissue (Figure B, C) with the concern for iatrogenic perforation of the colon during colonoscopy and accidental biopsy of patient's liver. The patient denied any symptoms suggestive of colonic perforation. Upon further discussion, he informed us that he ate fried cow's liver the day before the procedure which was inadvertently suctioned in the trap after cold snare polypectomy of his cecal polyp. Discussion: Identification of liver tissue in colonoscopy polypectomy specimens should raise possibility of catastrophic complication such as a perforation or simply a possibility of contamination of specimen with ingested food. Following-up with the patient to clarify the situation is important. A careful review of patient’s dietary intake before the colonoscopy procedure can help correctly interpret the unexpected pathology results.Figure 1.: 1A: Paris 0-1s 5 mm cecal polyp during surveillance colonoscopy. Figure 1B: At low power the section shows an eosinophilic homogenous tissue without surface epithelium. Figure 1C: At higher power: sheets of polygonal cells with round, centrally located nuclei, and abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm compatible with hepatocytes. The hepatocytes arranged in plates extend from central vein to portal triad.

Same-day single-dose vs large-volume split-dose regimens of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUNDSplit-dose regimens (SpDs) of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) have been established as the “gold standard” for bowel preparation; however, its use is limited by the large volumes of fluids required and sleep disturbance associated with night doses. Meanwhile, the same-day single-dose regimens (SSDs) of PEG has been recommended as an alternative; however, its superiority compared to other regimens is a matter of debate.AIMTo compare the efficacy and tolerability between SSDs and large-volume SpDs PEG for bowel preparation.METHODSWe searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, RCA, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded for randomized trials comparing (2 L/4 L) SSDs to large-volume (4 L/3 L) SpDs PEG-based regimens, regardless of adjuvant laxative use. The pooled analysis of relative risk ratio and mean difference was calculated for bowel cleanliness, sleep disturbance, willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation and adverse effects. A random effects model or fixed-effects model was chosen based on heterogeneity analysis among studies.RESULTSA total of 18 studies were included. There was no statistically significant difference of adequate bowel preparation (relative risk = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.92-1.02) (14 trials), right colon Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference = 0.00; 95%CI: -0.04, 0.03) (9 trials) and right colon Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference = 0.04; 95%CI: -0.27, 0.34) (5 trials) between (2 L/4 L) SSDs and large-volume (4 L/3 L) SpDs, regardless of adjuvant laxative use. The pooled analysis favored the use of SSDs with less sleep disturbance (relative risk = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.40, 0.68) and lower incidence of abdominal pain (relative risk = 0.75; 95%CI: 0.62, 0.90). During subgroup analysis, patients that received low-volume (2 L) SSDs showed more willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation than SpDs (P < 0.05). No significant difference in adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting and bloating, was found between the two arms (P > 0.05).CONCLUSIONRegardless of adjuvant laxative use, the (2 L/4 L) SSD PEG-based arm was considered equal or better than the large-volume (≥ 3 L) SpDs PEG regimen in terms of bowel cleanliness and tolerability. Patients that received low-volume (2 L) SSDs showed more willingness to repeat the procedure using the same preparation due to the low-volume fluid requirement and less sleep disturbance.

Low-dose of magnesium sulfate solution was not inferior to standard regime of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in elderly patients: a randomized, controlled study

Background Large polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a standard regimen for bowel preparation. However, elderly patients suffered from adverse events. This study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral magnesium sulfate solution (MSS) vs standard PEG in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy. Methods Elderly patients aged 60–90 years, from two endoscopic centers, were enrolled in China. Patients were randomized to take a low dose of MSS or a standard PEG regime in a split-dose regime. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with adequate bowel preparation, which was defined as the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) ≥6 and each segmental BBPS was ≥2. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate (ADR), safety, adverse events, cecal intubation rate, willingness to repeat BP, and so on. Results 1174 elderly patients were randomly allocated to the MSS group (n = 588) or the standard group (n = 586). Adequate BP was achieved in 94.0% of patients in the MSS group and 92.5% in the control (p = .287). ADR was also comparable between the two groups (43.0% and 39.9%, p = .282). Compared with the standard group, MSS group reported less abdominal discomfort (1.7% vs 6.0%), less nausea (13.6% vs 21.0%) and vomiting (1.2% vs 4.2%). The change in serum potassium levels after preparation in the standard group was significantly lower than that in the MSS group (−0.19 ± 0.08 vs −0.41 ± 0.11, p = .037). Conclusions Low dose of MSS was not inferior to the standard PEG regime in terms of bowel preparation quality for elderly patients. Low-dose MSS offered fewer adverse events and better tolerability. It is a preferable choice for the elderly to undergo bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clinical trial registration number NCT 04948567

Comparison of the efficacy and safety between oral sulfate tablet and polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy according to age.

Background:Recently, a novel oral sulfate tablet (OST) has been introduced for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, whether elderly patients can take OST is not yet clear, as OST consists of 28 tablets. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of OST and polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation for colonoscopy according to age.Methods:We randomly divided subjects into an OST group and a PEG group and compared Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), bubble score, patient compliance and satisfaction, and safety between the 2 groups according to age (under 65 years of age vs 65 years of age and older).Results:Among the 179 participants, 61 were 65 years of age and older. The BBPS and bubble score of the OST group were better than that of the PEG group, regardless of age. The satisfaction of the OST group was better than that of the PEG group, regardless of age. The compliance was not different between the 2 groups; however, the OST group under 65 years of age had a higher rate of completing the dose within 2 hours compared with the PEG group under 65 years of age. Adverse events including abdominal distension, abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting were not different between the 2 groups.Conclusion:The use of OST for bowel preparation before colonoscopy is as effective and safe as PEG, and these results were consistent in elderly people 65 years of age and older.

Comparative evaluation of enema alone and in combination with oral polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before transvaginal pelvic floor reconstruction in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort study

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the value of using an enema alone for mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) before transvaginal pelvic floor reconstruction (TPFR) in patients ≥65 years old. In total, 190 patients were included [81 in the enema group vs. 109 in the enema + polyethylene glycol (PEG) group]. The levels of serum potassium (p = .004) and calcium (p = .005) were higher in the enema group after surgery. The decrease in serum calcium was more significant in the enema + PEG group (p = .027). More patients in the enema + PEG group developed hypokalaemia (p = .035) or hypocalcaemia (p = .008) after surgery. The incidence of thrombus and surgical site infection was similar and earlier bowel movement was evident in the enema group (p = .000). Overall, the enema group used more laxatives (p = .026). Using enema alone before TPFR reduces the incidence of electrolyte disturbances with no increase in surgical complications in elderly patients. IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject? TPFR is an effective treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in elderly women. Bowel preparation performed before gynecological surgery can reduce surgical site infection, but increase discomfort and electrolyte disturbance. What do the results of this study add? The levels of serum potassium and calcium were lower in the enema + PEG group than in the enema group after surgery and more patients developed hypokalaemia or hypocalcaemia in the enema + PEG group. The incidence of thrombus and surgical site infection was similar between the two groups. Bowel movement was earlier in the enema group. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or future research? Using enema alone before TPFR reduces the incidence of electrolyte disturbance and does not increase surgical complications. This conclusion needs to be confirmed by random controlled trial studies in the future.

P233 Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate tablet for the bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: multicenter randomized controlled study

Abstract Background Although high and low volume polyethylene glycol(PEG) bowel preparations are recommended for patients with inflammatory bowel disease(IBD) before colonoscopy, sometime it is limited due to poor compliance. So, studies regarding novel low volume preparations in IBD are need, but, there is limited data. We aimed to evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of oral sulfate tablet (OST) by comparison with 2L PEG and ascorbate (PEG/Asc) in patients with IBD. Methods One hundred ten patients with IBD were enrolled in this single-blind, multicenter, non-inferiority study. Patients were assigned either 2L PEG/Asc or OST to be administered in a split-dose regimen. OST patients were administered 14 tablets with more than 1L of free water in the evening, and the following morning. Colonoscopies were performed by blinded investigators. The primary efficacy endpoint was successful bowel cleansing rate, defined as Harefield Cleansing Scale grade A or B as evaluated by blinded endoscopist in each hospital. Secondary endpoints included the presence of residual air bubbles. Adverse events and laboratory evaluations were monitored to assess safety. Flare up of IBD symptoms and mucosa change associated with preparation were also evaluated. Tolerability, in terms of taste and degree of resistance to drink was assessed with VAS score by interview before colnoscopy. Safety was assessed by spontaneously reported adverse events, solicited ratings of expected prep symptoms, and laboratory testing. Results The cleansing score at all the segment was significantly higher in OST group. A high rate of cleansing success was seen with OST (98.1%), which was noninferior to 2L PEG/Asc (98.1%). Proportion of patients with bubble score 0 was significantly higher in OST than 2L PEPG/Asc group (94.5% vs. 50.0%, p&amp;lt;0.001). Satisfaction, in terms of easiness to drink (8.2 ± 1.6 vs. 6.0 ± 2.2, p&amp;lt;0.001) and taste(7.0 ± 2.8 vs. 5.4 ± 2.4, p=0.002) was significantly higher in OST group. More patients in OST group (94.5%) wanted to repeat the same preparation next colonoscopy. There was no significant difference in the development of vomiting and bloating between group. Aphthous ulcers were noted in the same number of patients in both group and symptom flare up were noted in 2 cases of OST group (p=1.000). No clinically significant differences were seen between preps for renal function and serum electrolyte. Conclusion Oral sulfate tablets achieved a high level of cleansing comparable with 2L PEG/Asc in patients with IBD. The risk of mucosal change or symptom relapse were not higher, on the other hand the degree of satisfaction was higher than 2L PEG/Asc. OST split method could be considered as one of the preparation method for patients with inactive IBD.

Predictors of Gastrointestinal Transit Times in Colon Capsule Endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION:Optimizing the accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) requires high completion rates. To prevent incomplete CCE, we aimed to identify predictors associated with slow CCE transit times.METHODS:In this population-based study, participants received CCE with a split-dose polyethylene glycol bowel preparation and booster regimen (0.5 L oral sulfate solution and 10 mg metoclopramide if capsule remained in stomach for > 1 hour). The following predictors were assessed: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking, coffee and fiber intake, diet quality, physical activity, dyspeptic complaints, stool pattern, history of abdominal surgery, medication use, and CCE findings. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions with backward elimination were performed.RESULTS:We analyzed 451 CCE procedures with a completion rate of 51.9%. The completion rate was higher among older participants (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–2.28, P = 0.03) and participants with a changed stool pattern (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.20–4.30, P = 0.01). Participants with a history of abdominal surgery had a lower completion rate (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36–0.80, P = 0.003). Participants with higher BMI had faster stomach, small bowel, and total transit times (β = −0.10, P = 0.01; β = −0.14, P = 0.001; β = −0.12, P = 0.01). A faster small bowel transit was found in participants with a changed stool pattern (β = −0.08, P = 0.049) and the use of metoclopramide (β = −0.14, P = 0.001). Participants with high fiber intake had a slower colonic transit (β = 0.11, P = 0.03).DISCUSSION:Younger age, unchanged stool pattern, history of abdominal surgery, low BMI, and high fiber intake resulted in slower CCE transit times and lower completion rates. In future practice, these factors can be considered to adjust preparation protocols.

Oral sulfate solution versus low-volume polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Oral sodium sulfate (OSS) solution and low-volume polyethylene glycol-based solutions are two of the more common low-volume purgatives used as colonoscopy preparations. Data on how these different low-volume solutions compare are mixed. Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare OSS with low-volume polyethylene glycol solutions (PEG) plus ascorbic acid (PEG + Asc) solution with respect to (i) satisfactory bowel preparation, (ii) excellent bowel preparation, and (iii) tolerability. Studies were identified by searching 10 medical databases for reports published from 1974 until 2019. Only fully published RCTs comparing OSS and low-volume PEG-based products with regard to overall satisfactory bowel preparation were included. Pooling was conducted by both fixed-effects and random effects models; results are presented from the random effects model when heterogeneity was significant. Seven studies (involving 2049 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference between OSS and PEG + Asc with respect to adequate bowel preparation (risk ratio [RR] 1.02 [0.99-1.06]; P = 0.16). OSS did result in a higher chance of excellent bowel preparation (RR 1.18 [1.06-1.31]; P = 0.03). OSS was associated with a 30% increased risk of nausea (RR 1.35 [1.03-1.77]; P = 0.03) and more than double the risk of vomiting (RR 2.30 [1.63-2.23]; P < 0.05) compared with PEG + Asc. Begg's funnel plot indicated low probability of publication bias. Individuals at low risk of inadequate bowel preparation who use OSS for bowel preparation are more likely to achieve excellent bowel preparation, but are more likely to experience nausea and vomiting than are individuals using low-volume PEG-based solutions.

Bowel cleansing efficacy for colonoscopy: prospective, randomized comparative study of same-day dosing with 1-L and 2-L PEG + ascorbate.

Background and study aims Polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparations are effective but associated with high ingestion volume. In this study, 1-L PEG and 2-L PEG preparations were compared in a randomized, colonoscopist-blinded, single-center trial. Patients and methods Patients were aged > 18 years, required colonoscopy, and provided informed consent. Randomization was 1:1 to 1-L PEG or 2-L PEG, based on hospital identification number (odd or even). Preparations were administered using same-day dosing adjusted for colonoscopy start time. The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (no segment scored < 2). Results A total of 852 patients were randomized. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, significantly more patients had diabetes in the 2-L PEG arm, resulting in the creation of the modified-ITT population (mITT) that excluded diabetic patients to correct the imbalance (1-L PEG, n = 239; 2-L PEG, n = 238). In the mITT, there was no significant difference in successful cleansing between 1-L PEG and 2-L PEG (88.3 % vs. 82.4 %; P = 0.067). Excellent cleansing (BBPS 7–9; no segment < 2) was significantly improved with 1-L PEG (60.7 % vs. 50.4 %; P < 0.024), as were mean scores in the right and left colon (right: 2.47 vs. 2.30; P < 0.008; left: 2.55 vs. 2.39; P = 0.008). Adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity and none resulted in discontinuation. Rates of nausea and vomiting were significantly higher with 1-L PEG, but that did not affect successful cleansing. Conclusions The lower-volume 1-L PEG was associated with higher levels of excellent bowel cleansing and greater mean segmental scores on the BBPS than 2-L PEG.

Oral Lactulose vs. Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Study.

BackgroundColonoscopy is the method of choice to evaluate colonic mucosa and the distal ileum, allowing the diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. Appropriate bowel preparation necessitates the use of laxative medications, preferentially by oral administration. These include polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium picosulfate, and sodium phosphate (NaP). Lactulose, a semi-synthetic derivative of lactose, undergoes fermentation, acidifying the gut environment, stimulates intestinal motility, and increases osmotic pressure within the lumen of the colon.MethodsIn this prospective randomized controlled study, we analyzed 40 patients who presented with symptomatic bleeding per rectum and underwent bowel preparation either with lactulose or polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation and other variables like palatability, discomfort, and electrolyte levels were analyzed.ResultsThe majority of the patients (90%) were comfortable with the taste of lactulose solution, whereas the PEG group patients (55%) were equally divided on its palatability. On lactulose consumption, 40% of patients reported nausea/vomiting and around 10% of patients complained of abdominal discomfort. Serum sodium levels showed insignificant changes from 4.33 ± 0.07 mEq/L to 4.21 ± 0.18 mEq/L while potassium also remained similar from 4.26 ± 0.03 mEq/L to 4.22 ± 0.17 mEq/L. The mean Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) in patients who received lactulose solution was 6.25 ± 0.786 and in those who received PEG solution, it was 6.35 ± 0.813 (P-value = 0.59).ConclusionsLactulose is a significantly more palatable form of bowel preparation and causes minor discomfort. It has a good bowel cleansing action comparable to PEG without causing any hemodynamic changes. It can be considered a cheaper and safe alternative for bowel preparation in colonoscopy in low-resource settings.

The Efficacy of Simethicone With Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background:Simethicone (SIM) is a commonly used antifoaming agent in the clinic. However, it has not been clarified whether SIM can improve the quality of intestinal preparation and the detection rates of adenomas (ADR) and polyps (PDR). This systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to mainly evaluate the effect of SIM in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.Materials and Methods:An electronic and a manual search of the literature for studies was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science in all published data before February 1, 2020. The primary outcomes were the quality of bowel preparation and the ADR and PDR. All the data were calculated using a pooled estimate of risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals, and a random-effect model was used for the calculation.Results:Eighteen randomized controlled trials with 7187 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) with SIM improved colon cleansing (P<0.00001), PDR (P=0.006) and the detection rate of lesions in the right colon (P<0.00001) when compared with PEG alone. There was no difference in the ADR (P=0.68), withdrawal time (P=0.06), cecal intubation rate (P=0.98), and cecal intubation time (P=0.65) between 2 groups. The rate of abdominal bloating rate was higher in the PEG group, but there was no significant difference in vomiting (P=0.65), and abdominal pain (P=0.25).Conclusions:SIM improves the quality of bowel cleanliness and PDR but not ADR. Besides, SIM improves the detection rate of lesions in the right colon and decreased abdominal bloating, but do not affect vomiting and abdominal pain or cramping.

Patient experience with NER1006 as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective, multicenter US survey

BackgroundNER1006 (Plenvu®, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Bridgewater, NJ) is a 1 L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation indicated for colonoscopy in adults. A US online survey assessed real-world ease of use and treatment satisfaction in individuals who received NER1006.MethodsAdults were recruited from 444 US community gastrointestinal practices and provided a kit number for enrollment into an online survey to be completed within 2 weeks. Survey questions evaluated colonoscopy history and prior bowel preparation(s) prescribed, patient experience during NER1006 administration, and patient satisfaction with the bowel preparation process. A 9-point predefined grading scale was used to evaluate ease of NER1006 preparation and consumption (range, 1 “very difficult” to 9 “very easy”); the perceived importance of volume requirement and clear liquid options (range, 1 “not important at all” to 9 “very important”); and patient satisfaction (range, 1 “not satisfied at all” to 9 “very satisfied”).Results1630 patients were enrolled, 1606 underwent colonoscopy, and 1598 completed the survey between September 15, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Among 1606 patients who had a colonoscopy, 62.5% were female, and the mean patient age was 54.4 years (range 18–89 years). Most patients (74.7%) did not report a family history of colon cancer, 62.6% had undergone prior colonoscopy, and 64.8% were undergoing colonoscopy for routine colorectal cancer screening. A majority (76.1%) of patients who completed the survey reported that NER1006 was very easy to prepare and take, and 89.9% were very or moderately satisfied with NER1006 overall. Most (97.6%) patients reported consuming all or most of the bowel preparation. Among 1005 patients with previous bowel preparation use, 84.7% indicated that their experience with NER1006 was much better or better (65.3%) or about the same (19.4%) compared with previously used bowel preparations, while only 15.3% rated NER1006 as worse or much worse.ConclusionsIn this first real-world, US multicenter survey, patient-reported experience with NER1006 as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy was favorable and adherence was high. The majority of patients were very or moderately satisfied with the overall experience and found it much better/better than previously used bowel preparations.Trial registration: Not applicable

Bowel-cleansing efficacy of the 1L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 (PLENVU) in patient subgroups in two phase III trials.

Background:Adequate bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy is essential for visualization of the colonic mucosa to maximize adenoma and polyp detection. The risk of inadequate bowel cleansing is heightened if the patient is older, male, overweight, and has comorbidities, such as diabetes. This post hoc analysis of the combined MORA and NOCT clinical trials explores the efficacy of evening/morning split-dose regimens of NER1006 (PLENVU®, Norgine Ltd), a 1-liter polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation, to evaluate its bowel-cleansing efficacy in patients at risk for inadequate cleansing.Methods:Patients requiring colonoscopy were randomized to receive evening/morning split-dosing of either NER1006, 2-liter (2L) PEG and ascorbate, or oral sulfate solution (OSS). Bowel-cleansing efficacy was assessed by treatment-blinded central readers using the validated Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS).Results:Split-dose NER1006 was associated with high levels of cleansing, ranging between 87.0% and 94.0% across all patient subtypes (n = 551), including patients with obesity or diabetes. However, patients aged >65 years and <45 years showed significantly greater rates of successful cleansing than patients aged 45–65 years (94.0% versus 94.2% versus 87.0%, p = 0.002). The high-risk patient subgroup, which included obese males aged ⩾60 years, had significantly improved overall and high-quality bowel-cleansing success rates of 100% (33/33) and 72.7% (27/33) on the HCS with NER1006, compared with 86.7% (26/30) and 50% (15/30) with the comparator solutions (p = 0.015 and p = 0.033, respectively). In this high-risk subgroup, adenoma detection was greater per patient receiving NER1006 versus the comparator group (1.82 versus 0.93, p = 0.041). NER1006 was the only treatment that enabled the detection of patients with ⩾5 adenomas [9.1% (3/33) versus 0/30, p = 0.047].Conclusion:NER1006 effectively cleansed a broad range of patients and offered superior bowel cleansing versus 2LPEG/OSS in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. Future research should establish whether more effective cleansing also enables improved adenoma detection.Plain language summaryA low-volume bowel preparation solution to better detect lesions associated with colorectal cancer during colonoscopyColorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world. Obese men over the age of 65 years are at particularly increased risk of developing CRC. If the changes in their large intestine (colon) could be seen more clearly during a colonoscopy (where a small camera is inserted via the anus to examine the bowels from the inside), patients who need treatment would be diagnosed earlier, thus improving their chances of survival. In this paper we discuss the use of a bowel preparation solution that is more convenient for patients (less to drink) but also cleans bowels more effectively, meaning more lesions are detected than when other solutions are used. This improved cleansing, and thus better visualization, occurred in a range of patients, including those at higher risk of CRC, such as older, overweight men.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: is diet restriction necessary?

Background: Bowel preparation is essential for quality colonoscopy. Although most bowel preparation regimens recommend dietary restriction for 24 to 48 hours before the procedure, the evidence for this is poor. This study aimed to investigate whether dietary restriction during bowel preparation improves the quality of colonoscopy. Methods: A prospective, randomised controlled pilot study in which the dietary restriction (DR) group (control) was instructed not to ingest high fibre foods for 48 hours prior to the use of a polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparation. The non-dietary restriction (NDR) group were given no dietary instruction but received instructions for the use of the PEG-based preparation. On the day of colonoscopy, the quality of the bowel effluent was assessed, and additional preparation given as necessary. The primary endpoint was quality of bowel cleansing using the Harefield Cleansing Scale during colonoscopy. The secondary endpoints were the need for additional bowel preparation and the quantity of additional bowel preparation given prior to endoscopy. Data were analysed on an intention to treat basis. Results: Twenty-three participants were randomised to the intervention group and thirty-four to the control group. Patient demographics were similar in both groups. Dietary restriction did not influence the success rate of bowel preparation: 97% successful bowel preparation in the DR group, vs 91% successful bowel preparation in the NDR group (p = 0.559). Additional bowel preparation requirement were similar in both groups: 35% in the DR group vs 39% in the NDR group (p = 0.768). Mean amount of additional bowel preparation required was similar: 560 ml in the DR group vs 460 ml in the NDR group (p = 0.633). Conclusion: The quality of bowel preparation was comparable in patients with and without dietary restrictions prior to colonoscopy. Non-restrictive diets prior to bowel preparation should be considered to increase compliance. The sample size of this pilot study prohibited definite statistical conclusions but demonstrated this to be a reasonable methodology for a larger study.