Split-dose Bowel Preparation Research Articles

Alteration in gut microbiota after colonoscopy: proposed mechanisms and the role of probiotic interventions.

Colonoscopy, a widely used procedure for diagnosing and treating colonic diseases, induces transient gastrointestinal symptoms and alterations in the gut microbiota. This review comprehensively examines the evidence on alterations in the gut microbiota following colonoscopy and their possible mechanisms. Factors such as rapid colonic evacuation, increased osmolality, and mucus thinning caused by bowel preparation and exposure to oxygen during the procedure contribute to these alterations. Typically, the alterations revert to the baseline within a short time. However, their long-term implications remain unclear, necessitating further investigation. Split-dose bowel preparation and CO2 insufflation during the procedure result in fewer alterations in the gut microbiota. Probiotic administration immediately after colonoscopy shows promise in reducing alterations and gastrointestinal symptoms. However, the widespread use of probiotics remains controversial due to the transient nature of the symptoms and microbiobial alterations in the microbiota. Probiotics may offer greater benefits to individuals with preexisting gastrointestinal symptoms. Thus, probiotic administration may be a viable option for selected patients.

Online Educational Module Improves Knowledge of Nurses on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

The effectiveness of colonoscopy is limited by the adequacy of bowel preparation. Nurses are essential in providing bowel cleansing agents and instructions for hospitalized patients before colonoscopy. This study aims to assess and improve the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy. Participants were asked to complete the survey before and after completing an educational module. The module and survey questions were placed in the NetLearning environment of the hospital intranet. A minimum post-test score of 80% was required to pass the course. A total of 1,107 nurses participated in the survey. Overall, the average score improved from 87% to 93% after the module (p < .0495). Knowledge of the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents improved from 54.3% to 83.6% (p = .0001). Only 56.2% of nurses knew how to carry out a split-dose bowel preparation regimen, which increased to 80.1% after the educational module (p = .0001). Nurses' knowledge about the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents before colonoscopy and the split-dose regimen is inadequate. A simple online educational module significantly improved the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

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.

Endoscopic Disease Activity and Biologic Therapy Are Independent Predictors of Suboptimal Bowel Preparation in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Undergoing Colonoscopy.

Optimal bowel preparation (BP) is critical for endoscopic assessment of inflammation and dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Comorbidities and patient-related factors have been associated with suboptimal BP (SOBP) in the general population. We sought to identify disease-specific characteristics that may impact the quality of BP in patients with IBD. We conducted a retrospective analysis of adult IBD patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopies between January 2014 and September 2020 at a large academic medical center. Quality of BP was documented using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) or the Aronchick scale and dichotomized into "suboptimal" (BBPS 0-5 or Aronchick "fair," "poor," unsatisfactory") and "optimal" (BBPS 6-9 or Aronchick "excellent," "good"). IBD-specific and other factors associated with SOBP were evaluated using logistic regression analyses. Among a total of 395 IBD patients [54% males, mean age 40years, 63% with Crohn's disease (CD), 35% with ulcerative colitis (UC)], 24.8% had SOBP. On multivariable analysis, moderate-to-severe endoscopic disease vs mild or inactive disease was associated with a higher odds of SOBP [adjusted OR 2.7(95% CI 1.52-4.94)], whereas baseline biologic use was associated with a lower odds of SOBP [aOR 0.24(0.09-0.65)] among the overall IBD cohort. Additionally, age > 65years [aOR 2.99(1.19-7.54)] and single-dose vs split-dose BP [aOR 2.37(1.43-3.95)] were predictors of SOBP. In the subgroup analysis by IBD type, moderate-to-severe endoscopic disease predicted SOBP among both CD and UC cohorts. Endoscopic disease activity was predictive of SOBP, and biologic therapy was protective against SOBP among IBD patients.

Improving Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation and Reducing Patient Anxiety Through Recently Developed Online Information Resource: A Cross-sectional Study.

IntroductionInvasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies can cause psychological distress and anxiety. Mycolonoscopy.ca is a multilanguage website that provides online written and video information (individual items reported in prior publications to be highly rated by patients) regarding preparation and what to expect before, during, and after colonoscopy. Information about how to access the website is included with all colonoscopy appointment materials in Winnipeg, Manitoba. We evaluated the use of mycolonoscopy.ca among patients undergoing colonoscopy and examined the association between visitation to the website and patient outcomes.MethodsA paper-based survey was distributed to patients attending their colonoscopy appointments between 11/2019 and 3/2020. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the factors associated with website visitation, procedural worry, and bowel preparation scores.ResultsFive hundred and ninety-three surveys were distributed, of which 506 were completed. 17.4% of participants had visited the website before their colonoscopy. Visitors to mycolonoscopy.ca were more likely to consume a split-dose bowel preparation (63.9%) compared with non-visitors (52.5%) (P = 0.006). 31.3% of website visitors were very/extremely worried about their colonoscopy compared with 17.9% of non-visitors. 76.6% of individuals agreed/strongly agreed that visiting the website helped them prepare for their colonoscopy and 69.7% who visited the website agreed/strongly agreed that it helped to reduce their stress/anxiety for the procedure. In multivariable analyses, visitation to website was associated with higher adequate bowel preparation (OR:10.55; 95% CI:1.35 to 82.4).ConclusionUse of an informative online platform such as mycolonoscopy.ca can help to improve patient education before colonoscopy, reduce worry surrounding the procedure, and improve bowel preparation.

Impact of colonoscopy on working productivity: a prospective multicenter observational study

Patients undergoing colonoscopy are often in the workforce. Therefore, colonoscopy may affect patients' work productivity in terms of missed working days and/or reduced working efficiency. We aimed to investigate the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity and factors influencing this impact. We conducted a prospective, observational, multicenter study in 10 Italian hospitals between 2016 and 2017. We collected information on individual characteristics, work productivity, symptoms, and conditions before, during, and after the procedure from patients undergoing colonoscopy for several indications using validated tools. Outcomes were interference of preparation with work, absenteeism, and impaired work performance after the procedure. We fitted multivariate logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for potential predictors of the outcomes. Among 1137 subjects in the study, 30.5% reported at least 1 outcome. Impaired work performance was associated with bowel preparation regimen (full dose on the day of colonoscopy vs split dose: OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.43-11.5), symptoms during bowel preparation (high symptom score: OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.15-8.95), and pain during the procedure (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.40-4.35). Increasing number of working hours and less comfortable jobs were associated with absenteeism (P for trend= .06) and impairment of working performance (P for trend= .01) and GI symptoms both before and after colonoscopy. Occupational and individual characteristics of patients should be considered when scheduling colonoscopy because this procedure may impair work productivity in up to one-third of patients. Split-dose bowel preparation, performing a painless colonoscopy, and preventing the occurrence of GI symptoms may minimize the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity.

Serum electrolytes, osmolality, and cleansing quality after bowel prep for colonoscopy with a PEG solution containing ascorbic acid and electrolytes.

The cleansing procedure with PEG 3350 + ascorbic acid (PEG + Asc; Moviprep®) requires the additional ingestion of clear liquids. We aimed to determine the effects on serum electrolytes, osmolality and cleansing quality, and in a prospective "real world" trial. Patients underwent a standardized split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy with PEG + Asc. Serum electrolytes and osmolality were measured before and after the prep procedure. The volume of prep solution (PA) and additional clear liquid (CL) was recorded. Prep quality was assessed using the Ottawa Bowel Prep Grading Scale (OBPS). The primary outcome measures were changes of serum electrolytes and osmolality during the cleansing procedure. A secondary end point was the OPBS. One hundred ninety-one of 219 patients entered the per protocol analysis. Prep quality was considered excellent in 57.6%, moderate in 20.9%, and insufficient in 21.5%. The number of patients with hyponatremia increased from 12 (6.3%) before to 25 (13.2%) after the prep procedure. Mean sodium concentration did not change significantly. The volume of CL correlated inversely with Na+ concentration (r = - 0.409, p < 0.01) and a worse OBPS (r = 0.198, p < 0.01). Bowel preparation with PEG-Asc in clinical routine is generally safe, but patients should be advised not to drink more than 2l of clear liquid because of imminent electrolyte disturbances. Additionally, the quality of cleansing either remains unchanged or may even worsen.

Comparison of Gastric Residual Volume and pH between Single and Split-Dose Bowel Preparation in Patients Undergoing Esophago-Gastro-Duodenoscopy and Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Colonoscopy is an effective surveillance for the diagnosis and screening of colorectal cancer (CRC). Prior to the procedure, people would take laxatives for a good visualization of bowel texture. Although a split-dose bowel preparation has become popular, many anesthesiologists are concerned about pulmonary aspiration. Objective: To study the gastric residual volume and pH in patients taking split-dose bowel preparation as compared to those having laxatives on the day before the procedure. Materials and Methods: One hundred patients were randomized equally into two groups, as A for a single-dose, and B for a split-dose regimen. All patients underwent endoscopy under standard anesthetic care. The total gastric residual volume was suctioned, and pH was measured through the endoscope. The surgical team was unaware of the study protocol. The quality of bowel cleansing was assessed by the endoscopist using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Results: The bowel cleansing, the latency period, the endoscopist and patients’ satisfaction of single-and split-dose group were 7.06±1.4 and 8.14±1.1, 13.3±1.1 and 4.2±0.4 hours, 62.0% and 94.0%, and 90.0% and 74.0%, respectively. They all showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (p&lt;0.05). Conclusion: The gastric residual volume and pH were not different between the split and single-dose preparations. Therefore, it might not increase the risk of aspiration pneumonitis. However, the split-dose technique was more effective in colon cleansing, patients’ tolerability, acceptability, and compliance than the preparations administered entirely the day or evening before the surgical procedure. Keywords: Gastro-colonoscopy; Single-dose bowel preparation; Split-dose bowel preparation; Gastric residual volume; Anesthesia

Efficacy and safety of split-dose bowel preparation with 1 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate compared with 2 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate in a Korean population: a phase IV, multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study

The 1-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel preparation agent NER1006 (Plenvu; Norgine, Harefield, UK) has shown high cleansing efficacy and tolerability in clinical trials in Europe and North America. However, no clinical trials have yet been reported in Asia. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1L PEG-based bowel preparation with Plenvu compared with 2L PEG plus ascorbate bowel preparation in a Korean population. In this multicenter, endoscopist-blinded, randomized study, patients at 9 hospitals in South Korea undergoing colonoscopy received either Plenvu or 2L PEG+ ascorbate (2L PEG) with a split dose. The primary endpoint was overall bowel cleansing success (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score≥2 for all segments of the colon). Secondary endpoints were high-quality bowel cleansing success (overall, BBPS score= 9; segmental colon, BPPS score= 3), polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Of 360 included patients, cleansing efficacy was analyzed in 346 (Plenvu, 174; 2L PEG, 172). The Plenvu group showed noninferior bowel cleansing success rates compared with 2L PEG (93.10% vs 91.86%; difference, 1.24%; 1-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit, -4.31%; Pnoninferiority< .0001; Psuperiority= .661). The Plenvu group had higher high-quality bowel cleansing success rates for overall and right-sided colon segments than the 2L PEG group (49.43% vs 37.79% [P= .029] and 60.92% vs 48.84% [P= .024], respectively). The PDR was greater with Plenvu than with 2L PEG (48.85% vs 37.79%, P= .038). However, ADR did not differ between the 2 groups (24.71% vs 20.35%, P= .331). Although treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were slightly higher in the Plenvu group than in the 2L PEG group (65.71% vs 52.91%, P= .015), most TEAEs were mild (85.55%) and most patients recovered without any management (99.23%). Plenvu showed noninferior overall bowel cleansing success rates comparable with 2L PEG but greater high-quality bowel cleansing in overall and right-sided colon, which might help improve the PDR in the Asian population. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0005894.).

A108 ARE INPATIENTS STILL MORE LIKELY TO FAIL BOWEL PREPARATION IN THE SPLIT-DOSE ERA? FINDINGS FROM 47, 292 COLONOSCOPIES IN THE SOUTHWEST ONTARIO COLONOSCOPY COHORT

Abstract Background Prior studies before the widespread use of split-dose bowel preparation have shown a high rate of inadequate bowel preparation in hospitalized patients. Whether this is still true in the era of split-dose bowel preparation is unknown. Aims To determine the impact of inpatient status on bowel preparation quality in the contemporary era of split-dose bowel preparation. Methods The Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort consists of all inpatient and outpatient colonoscopies performed between April 2017 and Oct 2018 at 21 hospitals serving a large geographic health region. Procedures done in patients &amp;lt; 18 years of age or by an endoscopist performing &amp;lt;50 colonoscopies/year were excluded. Data were collected through a mandatory quality assurance form that was completed by the endoscopist after each procedure. Pathology reports were manually reviewed. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined on an ordinal scale as “good” or “fair” rather than “poor”. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results A total of 47,292 colonoscopies were performed by 75 physicians (36.2% by gastroenterologists, 60% by general surgeons, 4% others), of which 1,690 were inpatients (3.6%). Inpatients were older (mean 66.8 years vs 60.2 years, p&amp;lt;0.0001), more co-morbid (≥ASA grade 3, 53.6% vs 23.7%, p&amp;lt;0.0001), performed for symptomatic indications (95.7% vs 48.6%, p&amp;lt; 0.0001), have trainee involvement (47% vs 11.6% p&amp;lt;0.001), and less likely to receive split-dose bowel preparation (71.7% vs 91.6% p&amp;lt;0.001). On crude analysis, inpatients were less likely to have adequate bowel preparation (86.2% vs 97.6% p&amp;lt;0.001). On multi-variable analysis, inpatients had lower odds of achieving adequate bowel preparation (OR=0.41, 95% CI 0.33 - 0.50, p&amp;lt;0.001), lower ADR (OR=0.47, 95% CI 0.40 - 0.55, p&amp;lt;0.001), lower PDR (OR=0.54, 95% CI 0.47 - 0.61 p&amp;lt;0.001) and lower CIR (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.35 - 0.54, p&amp;lt;0.001). Conclusions In the era of split-dose bowel preparation, inpatient status is still an important predictor of inadequate bowel preparation with resultant lower quality outcome metrics. Funding Agencies None

A99 OPTIMIZING COLONOSCOPY PROCEDURES AND REDUCING PATIENT ANXIETY THROUGH RECENTLY DEVELOPED ONLINE INFORMATION RESOURCES

Abstract Background Invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies are known to cause psychological distress and anxiety. Patient anxiety leads to reduce patient compliance for colonoscopy and increased adverse effects. Patient education prior to colonoscopy has previously been shown to have positive effects on outcomes and experience. Based on patient and provider input, we have developed easy to read written materials and easy to follow video materials, which other patients have rated highly. These, along with other materials, are embedded on Mycolonoscopy.ca. Mycolonoscopy.ca is a website that provides online information access for patients regarding preparation and peri-procedural expectations. Information about accessing the website is provided with appointment materials (which includes information about split-dose versus one day bowel preparation, giving patients the option between the two) mailed to all patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy in Winnipeg. Aims (1) To evaluate the current use of mycolonoscopy.ca among patients undergoing colonoscopy (2) To determine whether there is an association between visitation to the website and patient outcomes such as reduction in procedural anxiety, bowel preparation tolerance/compliance, and bowel preparation score. Methods A paper-based survey was given out to patients at their colonoscopy appointments. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses was performed to determine the factors associated with website visitation and association with procedural anxiety, bowel preparation compliance and bowel preparation scores. Results A total of 593 participants were given the surveys, of which 506 were completed. 17.4% of participants had visited the website prior to their colonoscopy. Visitors to mycolonoscopy.ca and those that had heard of the website were more likely to consume a split-dose bowel preparation (63.9% and 68.2% respectively) compared with non-visitors (52.5%) (p=0.0062). Individuals who consumed split-dose bowel preparation had a median Boston bowel preparation score of 9, compared with a score of 7 for individuals who used other forms of preparation (p&amp;lt;0.0001). 31.3% of website visitors were very or extremely worried about their colonoscopy compared with 17.9% of non-visitors. 76.6% of individuals agreed or strongly agreed that visiting the website helped them prepare for their colonoscopy and 69.7% who visited the website agreed or strongly agreed that it helped to reduce their stress/anxiety for the procedure as well. Conclusions Our study suggests that use of an informative online platform such as mycolonoscopy.ca can help to improve patient education prior to colonoscopy, reduce anxiety and stress surrounding the procedure, and improve bowel preparation compliance and bowel cleansing score. Funding Agencies CAG

The Impact of Patient Education Level on Split-Dose Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation for CRC Prevention

IntroductionAGA guidelines emphasize split-dose bowel preparation (BP) to ensure high-quality colonoscopy for the prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). Split dose results in higher-quality preparation, but understanding instructions might be more difficult. Lower education levels may negatively influence BP quality. The confounding role of education level on BP quality was investigated.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study of 60 patients given split-dose BP. Patients consented and were asked three Likert scale questions based on BP instructions before the procedure. Compliance was self-reported. BP adequacy and the number of adenomas were recorded. BP was characterized as adequate (excellent, good) or inadequate (fair, poor). Data was analyzed with chi-square, odds ratio, Mann-Whitney, and regression analysis.ResultsThirty-one (52%) patients were high school graduates, 21 (38%) completed some college, and 6 (10%) were college graduates. College-educated patients had adequate BP (72%) more often than high school graduates (51%) (p = 0.02). Adenoma findings were not significantly different. The Likert scale mean ranks for patient understanding and reviewing of instructions were comparable between the two groups. Patient rating of scheduler explanations of the importance of following instructions was significantly better in the college group (mean ranks 2.59 and 1.83, respectively; p = 0.018).DiscussionPatient education level significantly affected the success of BP. Split BP can be more complex to comprehend, and instructions should consider patient education level. Specific intervention programs should be implemented to advise patients with less education that poor preparation may result in missed advanced neoplasias and subsequent procedures.

Split dose bowel preparation before colonoscopy of PEG (Nulytely) in comparison to routine single dose bowel preparation.

Background:The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG) in single- or split-dose regimens for colonoscopy bowel preparation.Methods:This is a prospective, randomized, endoscopist blinded, single-center study, that included adult patients who underwent colonoscopy during the period from December 2017 to October 2018. Two groups were enrolled in the same period: One group used 4 L of PEG (Nulytely) in a single-dose preparation, administered a day before the procedure, and the other group received a split-dose regimen of 2 L PEG (Nulytely), given a day before the procedure and 2 L on the day of the procedure in the early morning. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used for bowel preparation adequacy; scales 0 and 1 were considered inadequate, and scales 2 and 3 were considered adequate preparation.Results:Two hundred and forty patients were enrolled, 120 (50%) using the split-dose regimen and 120 (50%) using the single-dose regimen, for bowel preparation. Males constituted 51.6% of the study cohort. In the single-dose group, 62.5% achieved adequate bowel preparation compared to 89.2% in the split-dose group (p< 0.001). In addition, polyp detection in the split-dose group was 23.3% in comparison to 10.8% in the single-dose group (P = 0.016). We also found hypertension and diabetes as significant predictors of bowel preparation inadequacy, while sex and age were not related to bowel preparation adequacy.Conclusions:Split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy with PEG (Nulytely) is better than routine single-dose, in terms of adequate bowel preparation and polyp detection.

Split-dose vs same-day bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopies: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Split-dose vs same-day bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopies: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Split-dose vs same-day bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopies: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Split-dose vs same-day bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopies: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

New Patient Education Video on Colonoscopy Preparation: Development and Evaluation Study

BackgroundAlthough several patient education materials on colonoscopy preparation exist, few studies have evaluated or compared them; hence, there is no professional consensus on recommended content or media to use.ObjectiveThis study aims to address this need by developing and evaluating a new video on colonoscopy preparation.MethodsWe developed a new video explaining split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Of similar content videos on the internet (n=20), the most favorably reviewed video among patient and physician advisers was used as the comparator for the study. A total of 232 individuals attending gastroenterology or urology clinics reviewed the new and comparator videos. The order of administration of the new and comparator videos was randomly counterbalanced to assess the impact of presentation order. Respondents rated each video on the following dimensions: information amount, clarity, trustworthiness, understandability, new or familiar information, reassurance, information learned, understanding from the patient’s point of view, appeal, and the likelihood of recommending the video to others.ResultsOverall, 71.6% (166/232) of the participants preferred the new video, 25.0% (58/232) preferred the comparator video, and 3.4% (8/232) were not sure. Furthermore, 64.0% (71/111) of those who viewed the new video first preferred it, whereas 77.7% (94/121) of the participants who viewed the new video second preferred it. Multivariable logistic regression analysis also demonstrated that participants were more likely to prefer the new video if they had viewed it second. Participants who preferred the new video rated it as clearer and more trustworthy than those who preferred the comparator video.ConclusionsThis study developed and assessed the strengths of a newly developed colonoscopy educational video.

Efficacy and Patient Tolerability of Split-Dose Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Oral Solution Compared to the Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Solution for Bowel Preparation in Outpatient Colonoscopy: An Evidence-Based Review.

BackgroundColonoscopy is the gold standard exam for evaluation of colonic abnormalities and for screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy of colonoscopy is dependent on the quality of the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) have emerged as two of the most commonly used bowel preparation agents. We conducted an evidence-based review of current evidence to further investigate the efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose SPMC oral solution compared to PEG solution for colonoscopy bowel preparation.MethodsA systematic search was performed using Pubmed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. All studies on split-dose bowel preparation with SPMC and PEG were reviewed. Relevant studies regarding colonoscopy and bowel preparations were also included. Randomized controlled trials were prioritized due to the high quality of evidence.ResultsEight randomized controlled trials were included. Split-dose SPMC and PEG were associated with similar results for adequacy of bowel preparation. Split-dose SPMC was associated with increased patient tolerability and compliance.ConclusionSplit-dose SPMC and PEG are both adequate and safe for bowel preparation for outpatient colonoscopy, with split-dose SPMC being more tolerable for patients. Additional RCTs comparing these and other bowel preparation solutions are necessary to further investigate quality of bowel preparation, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of the various options.

S0573 Online Educational Module Improves Knowledge of Nurses on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 2nd leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for screening for CRC. The effectiveness of colonoscopy is limited by the adequacy of bowel preparation. This adequacy has been reported to be worse for in-patients compared to out-patients. Nurses are essential in providing bowel cleansing agents and instructions for hospitalized patients before colonoscopy. This study aims to assess and improve the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. METHODS: An educational module on bowel prep before colonoscopy was created using PowerPoint slides. There were 20 slides. Fifteen questions were included in the survey. Participants were asked to complete the survey before and after completing the module. The module and survey questions were placed in the NetLearning® environment of the intranet of the hospital. HealthcareSource NetLearning is a proprietary learning management system specialized for healthcare facilities. The system allows hospital staff through secured login to access professional development courses. The course was titled Bowel Preparation (2020 Annual Education). A minimum post-test score of 80% was required to pass the course. RESULTS: A total of 1,107 nurses participated in the survey representing 81% of the staff that received the survey. The average time to complete the module and survey questions was 4 minutes. Overall, the average score improved from 87% pre-test to 93% post-test (P < 0.0001). The ability to correctly identify different types of bowel cleansing agents improved from 75.8% to 94.3%. Knowledge of the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents improved from 54.3% to 83.6%. Only 56.2% of nurses knew how to carry out a split-dose bowel preparation regimen; which increased to 80.1% after the educational module. There was no difference in identifying readiness for colonoscopy based on rectal effluent (99.4% pre-test vs 99.8% post-test). CONCLUSION: Knowledge of nurses on the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents before colonoscopy and the split-dose regimen is inadequate. A simple online educational module significantly improved the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

An Automated Inpatient Split-dose Bowel Preparation Improves Colonoscopy Preparation Quality

Inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation is frequently inadequate, negatively impacting patient safety and procedure quality, directly leading to higher costs due to prolonged hospital stays. At the University of Chicago Medical Center (UCMC), inpatient bowel preparation ordering had not previously been standardized, which led to practice variability and suboptimal results. Split-dose inpatient colonoscopy preparation has previously been shown to improve the quality of colonoscopy preparation. Thus, our aim was to introduce an automated split-dose bowel preparation order set in order to improve the quality of inpatient bowel preparation.