Split-dose Polyethylene Glycol 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.

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

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.

Lubiprostone plus polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) versus PEG-ELS for bowel preparation in chronic constipation: a randomized controlled trial

Colonoscopy is considered the standard procedure for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. Adequate bowel cleansing is an important determinant of the efficacy of colonoscopy screening. Currently, there is no standard method of bowel preparation for patients with chronic constipation. The aim was to access the rate of adequate bowel cleansing achieved using split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) plus lubiprostone in comparison with split-dose PEG-ELS alone. A single-centre, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Seventy-eight constipated patients aged 18–75 years who were indicated for colonoscopy in the gastroenterology unit of Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen University, between February 2020 and February 2021 were randomly allocated to receive either split-dose PEG-ELS in combination with lubiprostone (N = 39) or split-dose PEG-ELS alone (N = 39) before colonoscopy. Adequate bowel cleansing was defined as an Ottawa bowel preparation score ≤ 7. The rate of adequate bowel cleansing was comparable between the PEG-ELS plus lubiprostone group and the PEG-ELS alone group (50% vs. 52.9%, p value = 0.81) with a relative risk of 1.13 (95% CI = 0.43–2.91). There were no significant differences in adenoma detection rate (41.2% vs. 35.3%, p value = 0.62), adverse events, acceptance, compliance, or patient satisfaction between the 2 groups. No additional benefit to successful bowel preparation was achieved by the combination of lubiprostone and PEG-ELS in chronic constipation patients undergoing 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.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of an oral sulfate solution and 3-L polyethylene glycol on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a phase III multicenter randomized controlled trial

Adequate bowel preparation is crucial for clear mucosal visualization during colonoscopy. We aimed to comprehensively compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) and 3-L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. This randomized, active-controlled, noninferiority study was performed in 10 medical centers. Eligible subjects were enrolled to receive OSS or 3-L PEG in a split-dose regimen. The quality of bowel preparation, adverse reactions, and acceptability were evaluated. The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Safety was evaluated by adverse reactions. The study population was divided into the full analysis set (FAS), the safety set, the modified FAS (mFAS), and the per-protocol set (PPS). Three hundred forty-eight potentially eligible subjects were enrolled. Three hundred forty-four subjects were included in the FAS and safety set, 340 subjects were included in the mFAS, and 328 subjects were included in the PPS. Adequate bowel preparation of the OSS was not inferior to 3-L PEG in the mFAS (98.22% vs 97.66%) and the PPS (98.17% vs 98.78%). There was no significant difference in acceptability between the 2 groups (94.74% vs 94.80%, P= .9798). Overall adverse reactions were similar (50.88% vs 44.51%, P= .2370) between the 2 groups. The split-dose OSS regimen was not inferior to the split-dose 3-L PEG regimen for the quality of bowel preparation in a Chinese adult population. The safety and acceptability of the 2 groups were similar. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05465889.).

Efficacy of single-versus split-dose polyethylene glycol for colonic preparation

Background: Before a colonoscopy, polyethylene glycol (PEG) is often used to prepare the colon. PEG dosage recommendations are still up for discussion. In this randomized controlled experiment, the effectiveness and acceptability of PEG administered in single vs. split doses for colonic preparation was compared. Methods: A total of 120 individuals were randomized to either split-dose PEG for colonic preparation or a single-dose PEG at Department of Gastroenterology, Hayatabad medical complex. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used for assessing the rate of bowel cleaning for the colonoscopy. A visual analog scale was used to evaluate the preparation's acceptability and tolerability. Results: The quality of colonic preparation was considerably greater in the split-dose PEG group than in the single-dose PEG group, as shown by the BBPS score, which was significantly higher in the split-dose PEG group (7.5±1.2) than in the single-dose PEG group (6.3±1.3) (P0.001). Patient satisfaction did not vary significantly between the two groups, but the split-dose PEG group had a higher completion rate of colonoscopies (97% vs. 95%) as well as greater patient acceptability and tolerance.

Impact of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist liraglutide and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin on bowel cleaning and gastrointestinal symptoms in type 2 diabetes.

Objective: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) profoundly affect the gastrointestinal motor system, which may increase the incidence of inadequate bowel cleaning and gastrointestinal symptoms. Hence, this observational study mainly aimed to assess the influence of GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and DPP-4i sitagliptin on bowel preparation in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Method: This observational study consecutively enrolled T2DM scheduled for a colonoscopy. Participants were prospectively separated into the liraglutide group (n = 120), sitagliptin group (n = 120), and control group (n = 120) based on the current hypoglycemic regimen. 3L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimens were used for bowel preparation. Experienced gastrointestinal endoscopists conducted colonoscopies. Lawrance Bowel-Preparation Tolerability Questionnaire and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) were conducted to assess bowel cleaning quality, tolerability, and safety. Results: The incidence of inadequate bowel cleaning was 17.5% in the liraglutide group, 20.5% in the sitagliptin group, and 21.7% in the control group. The difference among the three groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.927). Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in the mean BBPS, cecal intubation time, and polyp-detecting rates among the three groups (all p > 0.0.05). Nausea, vomiting, and bloating scores were increased in the liraglutide group compared with the other two groups (p < 0.05), whereas most were mild or very mild. Subgroup analyses showed that the incidence of inadequate bowel cleaning in T2DM with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) was increased in the liraglutide group compared with the sitagliptin group (61.3% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.022) and control group (61.3% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.025). Conclusion: GLP-1RA liraglutide or DPP-4i sitagliptin did not significantly increase the incidence of inadequate bowel cleaning and gastrointestinal symptoms during bowel preparation. Liraglutide may increase the incidence of inadequate bowel preparation in patients with DPN. This study reveal that more attention and aggressive bowel preparation regimens should be given to the T2DM with DPN. Clinical Trial Registration: (https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx), identifier (ChiCTR2200056148).

Efficacy of morning-only dose compared with split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution in bowel cleansing for afternoon colonoscopy

Introduction: The efficacy of colonoscopy in detecting abnormalities within the colon is highly dependent on the adequacy of the bowel preparation. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of morning only dose vs split-dose administration of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution for colon cleansing in patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy.&#x0D; Method: This was a comparative study conducted in Department of Medicine, Patan Academy of Health Sciences (PAHS), Patan Hospital, Nepal from November 2021 to June 2022. The ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Review Committee. Informed consent was taken from the patients. Patients aged &gt;18 y undergoing elective colonoscopy were randomly assigned to one of the two bowel preparation regimens- morning only or split-dose of PEG. The adequacy of bowel preparation was assessed by the endoscopist using Boston Bowel Preparation scale. Preparation to colonoscopy (PC) interval, adverse events and risk factors for poor bowel preparations were noted.&#x0D; Result: In this study, 110 patients were included in the final analysis- 55 received morning only regimen and 55 received split-dose. Mean Boston bowel preparation scales of Morning only and Split-dose regimen were 7.60 and 7.09 respectively (p= 0.019). Split-dose group had significant sleep disturbances compared to Morning only regimen (p&lt; 0.001), whereas nausea occurred significantly more often in Morning only regimen (p=0.012). Preparation to colonoscopy interval between 4-6 hours resulted in better bowel cleansing compared to PC interval of greater than 6 hours.&#x0D; Conclusion: Morning-only bowel preparation is more effective than Split-dose for achieving adequate colon cleansing for afternoon colonoscopy.

Comparison of Same Day Polyethylene Glycol Regimen Vs Split Dose Polyethylene Glycol Regimen for Colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is a procedure which depends upon the quality of bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol(PEG) is commonly used laxative for bowel preparation .The method of PEG administration affects the quality of bowel preparation. We designed this single-blinded randomized controlled trial to evaluate same day PEG regime vs split dose PEG regime in patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHOD: Total of 156 patients taken for the examination. They were divided randomly in two groups A &amp; B. The patients in the group A (same day group) took 2 L of PEG between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM on the same day of colonoscopy. The patients in the other group B ( split dose group ) took 1L of PEG between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM on the preceding day and another liter between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM on the day of colonoscopy. These patients had to stay in hospital for about 24 hours.The accuracy of preparation was assessed on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). A sum total of ≤ 5 points shows poor bowel preparation &amp; ≥ 8 shows very good bowel preparation. Side effects were recorded by asking symptoms of nausea ,vomiting ,abdominal pain &amp; bloating. Results: In same day dose group, 62 patients were having BPPS preparation score of &gt;8 . While in second split dose group 64 patients were having BPPS preparation score &gt;8. Chi square test revealed that there was no significant difference in BPPS score between both groups. However there was significant difference in patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the same procedure between both groups. . Group A same dose regime were more satisfied &amp; willing to repeat the procedure. They reported less interference in their sleep . Conclusion: Same- day morning PEG regime should be used which is more easy &amp; tolerable for our patients population and its efficacy is same as other regimes for adequate bowel preparation.

Bowel preparation using 2-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen plus lubiprostone versus 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen: a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundColonoscopy is a standard procedure for evaluating colon diseases and screening for colorectal cancer, and bowel cleanliness prior to colonoscopy is key. The aim of this study was to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy of low-volume (2 L) split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus single-dose (24 µg) lubiprostone (LB) and high-volume (4 L) split-dose PEG.MethodsPatients scheduled to undergo outpatient colonoscopy between December 2019 and June 2021 at Rajavithi Hospital were enrolled and randomized into two groups: 2 L PEG + LB or 4 L PEG. Colon cleanliness was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by reviewing images of the colon after completion of colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes comprised cecal intubation rate, procedure time, withdrawal time, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, patient satisfaction, compliance (based on complete ingestion of bowel preparation regimen), willingness to repeat the preparation regimen, and associated adverse events.ResultsOne hundred and forty patients were included, with 70 in each group. The mean total and segment-specific BBPS scores were not significantly different between groups. However, the rate of adequate bowel preparation was significantly higher in the 2 L PEG + LB group than the 4 L PEG group (100% [95% CI 94.6–100] versus 88.4% [95% CI 78.4–94.9], p = 0.004) in the per-protocol analysis. Colonic polyps were the most common finding. The polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and all secondary outcomes were statistically similar in the two groups (p > 0.05).ConclusionsThe combination of 2 L split-dose PEG plus LB improves bowel cleanliness (based on BBPS scores) to a comparable degree to the standard 4 L split-dose PEG, without additional adverse events and with a lower PEG volume.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Two Different Low-Volume Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Electrolytes Solution Bowel Preparation for Morning Colonoscopy.

Methods A total of 120 patients were randomized to receive either the control group (n = 64) or the experimental group (n = 65). Patients in the control group adopted the low-volume split-dose regimen one, and patients in the experimental group adopted the low-volume split-dose regimen two. Those randomized to regimen one were instructed to take 0.75 L PEG two hours after dinner the day before the colonoscopy and 1.5 L PEG 4 hours before the colonoscopy. Patients assigned to regimen two were invited to consume 1.5 L PEG two hours after dinner the day before the colonoscopy and 0.75 L PEG 4 hours before the colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation, rated according to a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), represented the primary outcome measure. Tolerability, satisfaction, and lesions detection rated were secondary outcomes. Results There was no significant difference between the transverse colon and right colon scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). The low-volume split-dose regimen two showed a higher success rate for cleansing of the right colon and overall colon (P < 0.05). For the comparison of the patients' bowel tolerance, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding thirst, abdominal pain or abdominal discomfort, abdominal distension, dizziness or headache, anal discomfort, and sleep disturbance (P > 0.05). However, regimen two had significantly less nausea, vomiting, and fatigue than regimen one (24.62% vs. 42.19%, P=0.034; 10.77% vs. 25.00%, P=0.035; 6.15% vs. 21.88%, P=0.010, respectively). Patient-reported satisfaction and willingness to repeat the bowel preparation were significantly higher for low-volume split-dose regimen two than for low-volume split-dose regimen one (P=0.011; P=0.015). Conclusions In early morning colonoscopies, the bowel-cleansing efficacy and patient tolerability of low-volume split-dose regimen two were superior to low-volume split-dose regimen one.

Comparative Study of Single- Versus Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Solution Before Undergoing Colonoscopy

Objective: To compare the outcome of consumption of a single versus split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution in patients undergoing colonoscopy in the morning. Methodology: A randomised controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Gastroenterology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore, from April to July 2021. A total of 274 patients undergoing colonoscopy, who fulfilled the selection criteria were included through a "non-probability, consecutive sampling technique". The patients were randomly divided into two groups. In group A, single dose of PEG was administered. Group B was administered a split dose of PEG which was to be consumed in two parts, 1st in evening before colonoscopy and the second in the morning. Efficacy was labelled if adequate cleaning of the intestines and a BBPS score of ≥6 were achieved during colonoscopy. Results:  In the single dose group, the mean age of patients was 45.15 ± 13.37 years, 68 (49.6%) patients were male, 69 (50.4%) patients were female, efficacy of the procedure was achieved in 54 (39.4%) patients, and the mean BBPS score was 4.99 ± 0.90. In the split dose group, mean age of patients was 49.85 ± 11.38 years, 56 (40.9%) patients were male, 81 (59.1%) patients were female, efficacy of the procedure was achieved in 137 (100%) patients, and the mean BBPS score was 7.61 ± 0.49. The difference in both groups was highly significant (p-value &lt; 0.0001). Conclusion: A split dose is thus more efficacious and acceptable than a single dose of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution given for bowel preparation.

Predictive factors for inadequate bowel cleansing in colon capsule endoscopy

Background and aimsAchieving adequate bowel cleansing is of utmost importance for the efficiency of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). However, information about predictive factors is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive factors of poor bowel cleansing in the CCE setting. MethodsIn this observational study, 126 patients who underwent CCE at two tertiary care hospitals were included between June 2017 and January 2020. Participants prepared for bowel cleansing with a 1-day clear liquid diet, a 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen and boosters with sodium phosphate, sodium amidotrizoate and meglumine amidotrizoate. Domperidone tablets and bisacodyl suppositories were administered when needed. Overall and per-segment bowel cleansing was evaluated using a CCE cleansing score. Simple and multiple logistic regression analysis were carried out to assess poor bowel cleansing and excretion rate predictors. ResultsOverall bowel cleansing was optimal in 53 patients (50.5%). Optimal per-segment bowel cleansing was achieved as follows: cecum (86 patients; 74.8%), transverse colon (91 patients; 81.3%), distal colon (81 patients; 75%) and rectum (64 patients; 66.7%). In the univariate analysis, elderly (OR, 1.03; 95% CI (1.01–1.076)) and constipation (OR, 3.82; 95% CI (1.50–9.71)) were associated with poor bowel cleansing. In the logistic regression analysis, constipation (OR, 3.77; 95% CI (1.43–10.0)) was associated with poor bowel cleansing. No variables were significantly associated with the CCE device excretion rate. ConclusionOur results suggest that constipation is the most powerful predictor of poor bowel cleansing in the CCE setting. Tailored cleansing protocols should be recommended for these patients.

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.

The Bowel CLEANsing National Initiative: High-Volume Split-Dose Vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Preparations: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this study was to compare high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-volume PEG with bisacodyl split-dosing regimens. Adult outpatients in 10 Canadian tertiary hospitals were randomized, stratified by morning or afternoon colonoscopy, to high-volume split-dose PEG (2 L+ 2 L) (High-SD) or low volume (1 L+ 1 L)+ bisacodyl (15 mg) PEG (Low-SD), with a second randomization to liquid or low-residue diets. The primary end point, using noninferiority hypothesis testing, was adequate bowel cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score of ≥6, with each of 3 colonic segments subscores ≥2). Secondary objectives were willingness to repeat the preparation, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and polyp detection rates. Over 29 months, 2314 subjects were randomized to High-SD (N= 1157) or Low-SD (N= 1157) (mean age, 56.2 ± 13.4 y; 52.1% women). Colonoscopy indications were 38.2% diagnostic, 36.8% screening, and 25.0% surveillance, with no between-group imbalances in patient characteristics. Low-SD satisfied noninferiority criteria vs High-SD for adequate bowel cleanliness with only marginally inferior results (90.1% vs 88.1%; P= .02; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI [0.0%; 4.5%]). High-SD was associated with lower willingness to repeat (66.9% vs 91.9%; P < .01), was less well tolerated (7.3 ± 2.3 vs 8.1 ± 1.9; P < .01), causing more symptoms. No differences in procedural outcomes were noted except for more frequent cecal intubation rates after High-SD (97.4% vs 95.6%; P= .02). Among the High-SD group, adequate bowel preparation was greater after a clear liquid diet (93.6% vs 87.9%; P < .01), a finding not seen in the Low-SD group. Low-SD is noninferior to High-SD in providing adequate bowel preparation. Low-SD results in fewer symptoms, with greater willingness to repeat and tolerability. The overall impact of diet was modest.The study was approved by the research ethic boards from all sites and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02547571).

Split-dose 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbate is non-inferior to split-dose PEG with sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate with similar tolerability: a randomized study.

ABSTRACTBackground and AimPost‐marketing studies comparing low‐volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)‐based regimens are limited. This randomized study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a novel 1‐L low‐volume PEG‐based preparation: 1 L PEG+Asc (PEG3350, sodium ascorbate, sodium sulfate, ascorbic acid, sodium chloride, and potassium chloride) with PEG+SPMC (PEG3350, sodium chloride, potassium chloride and sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, citric acid, and aspartame), prior to routine colonoscopy at an Australian tertiary referral center.MethodsOutpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either split‐dose 1 L PEG+Asc or split‐dose PEG+SPMC. Bowel preparation quality using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BPPS), modified Aronchick scores, procedure time, cecal intubation, and adenoma detection rates were recorded. Patient compliance and tolerability were captured using a standardized questionnaire.ResultsA total of 173 patients were randomized, of whom 164 completed the study and were allocated to 1 L PEG+Asc (n = 82) or PEG+SPMC (n = 82). Non‐inferiority of 1 L PEG+Asc was demonstrated with 89% achieving successful preparation (total BPPS ≥6 and each sub‐score ≥2) compared with 85.4% in the PEG+SPMC group, resulting in an estimated difference of 3.7% (95% CI −6.6% to 13.9%). The median BBPS was non‐inferior in all colonic segments with 1 L PEG+Asc (BBPS 3 [interquartile range 2–3]) vs PEG+SPMC (BBPS 2 [interquartile range 2–3]). More 1 L PEG+Asc patients reported moderate to severe nausea (P = 0.028), but overall tolerability was similar.ConclusionsThe quality of bowel preparation achieved with 1 L PEG+Asc is non‐inferior to that with PEG+SPMC, with similar tolerability outcomes. Further studies are required in patients at risk of suboptimal bowel preparation.

Impact of simethicone on bowel cleansing during colonoscopy in Chinese patients.

BACKGROUNDFour-liter polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions are effective for bowel cleansing, but their large volume might hinder patient compliance. Due to the unique features of Asians, 4 L PEG might be a suboptimal bowel preparation in predominantly ethnically Asian countries. In view of this, a balance should be achieved between the volume and effectiveness. The ideal bowel cleansing regimen for a colonoscopy has yet to be determined in a Chinese population.AIMTo compare the cleansing efficacy of 3 L PEG plus simethicone with 4 L PEG.METHODSA total of 291 patients were randomly allocated to two groups: Group 1 (n = 145) received 4 L split-dose PEG (4-P); group 2 (n = 146) received 3 L split-dose PEG plus simethicone (3-PS). Bowel-cleansing efficacy was evaluated by endoscopists using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) and the bubbles score.RESULTSAlthough there were no significant differences in the total BBPS score or the adequate rate of bowel preparation between the two groups, the BBPS score of the right-side colon was significantly higher in the 3-SP group (2.37 ± 0.54 vs 2.21 ± 0.78; P = 0.04). Moreover, the use of simethicone significantly reduced bubbles in all colon segments (P < 0.001). The mean withdrawal time was significantly shorter in the 3-PS group (8.8 ± 3.4 vs 9.6 ± 2.3; P = 0.02). Furthermore, significantly more proximal adenomas were detected in the 3-PS group (53.6% vs 45.7%; P = 0.03). In addition, the proportions of patients with nausea and bloating were significantly lower in the 3-SP group (P < 0.01 for both). More patients in the 3-PS group expressed willingness to repeat the bowel preparation (87.7% vs 76.6%, P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONThree-liter PEG shows satisfactory bowel cleansing despite the decrease in dosage, and addition of simethicone with better bubble elimination and enhanced patient acceptance offers excellent potential impact on the detection of proximal adenomas in Chinese patients.

A134 A MULTI-CENTRE RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL TO COMPARE TWO BOWEL CLEANSING REGIMENS AFTER A COLONOSCOPY WITH INADEQUATE BOWEL PREPARATION

Abstract Aims Failed bowel preparation is common during colonoscopy, yet the optimal purgative regimen to use for the next attempt is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of two regimens at supratherapeutic doses for use after failed bowel preparation. Methods A multi-centre phase III endoscopist blinded randomized controlled trial (NCT02976805) was conducted in patients who failed bowel preparation, using the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) definition of inability to exclude polyps &amp;gt;5 mm in size and requiring a shortened interval to next colonoscopy. Regimen A consisted of 15 mg of bisacodyl and 2 + 2 L of split dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution (PEG) and Regimen B consisted of 15 mg of bisacodyl and 4 + 2 L of split dose PEG. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) total score ≥ 6 with all segment scores ≥ 2. Secondary outcomes were adequate bowel preparation using the USMSTF definition, median BBPS, adenoma detection (ADR), advanced adenoma detection (aADR), sessile serrated polyp detection (SSPDR), and cecal intubation (CIR). Adverse events were assessed at the time of the colonoscopy and 14 days later. Results Between February 2017 and December 2019, 250 subjects were screened at four academic centres in Canada, of which 195 were randomized: 96 to Regimen A and 99 to Regimen B. The mean (SD) age was 60.6 (11.4) years, 87 (45.1%) were female, and the median (IQR) total BBPS score at previous failed colonoscopy was 3 (1,4). Regimen B was not superior to Regimen A in achieving adequate bowel preparation using the BBPS definition (87.6% vs. 91.1%, p=0.45) or the USMSTF definition (85.4% vs 91.1%, p=0.24), nor was it superior with respect to the median BBPS score (7 vs 7, p=0.50), mean ADR (31.5% vs 37.8%, p=0.37), aADR (11.2% vs 18.9%, p=0.15), SSPDR (5.6% vs 8.9%, p=0.40) or CIR (92.1% vs 96.7%, p=0.19). Regimen A had a higher adherence rate (88.2% vs. 74.7%, p=0.02) and greater willingness to undergo the bowel preparation again (91.2% vs. 66.2%, p&amp;lt;0.001). The only serious adverse event occurred in a patient randomized to Regimen B who was admitted to hospital for vomiting after colonoscopy. Conclusions Split dose 4L PEG with 15mg of bisacodyl is highly efficacious, well tolerated, and can be used for patients who previously failed first line bowel preparations. The additional 2L of PEG in Regimen B did not improve bowel preparation and was not as well tolerated. Funding Agencies AMOSO Opportunities Grant, Pharmascence Inc.

Association between anxiety, depression, and bowel air bubbles at colonoscopy: a prospective observational study.

Psychological illness could affect the gut transmission. However, few studies have reported on the association between anxiety and depression and bowel preparation failure at colonoscopy. Bowel air bubbles have become an indispensable index to evaluate intestinal cleanliness. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether anxiety and depression are associated with the bowel air bubbles. The present study was a prospective observational study of patients who underwent colonoscopy in our hospital. Participants received the standard bowel preparation guidance, including split-dose polyethylene glycol and a low-fiber diet 1 day before colonoscopy. The primary outcome was degree of the bowel air bubble, measured by bubble scores. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to verify the association between anxiety and depression and bowel air bubbles. A total of 304 patients were enrolled in the present study between July 2019 and January 2020; 302 of these had complete data. The mean age was 48.74±11.73 years. Fifty six of 302 patients had anxiety. Age between 45 and 60 years [odds ratio (OR): 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-3.87], age >60 years (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.01-3.95), and anxiety (OR: 3.85, 95% CI: 2.12-6.97) were identified as risk factors for bowel air bubbles. A bachelor degree and above (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.07-0.97) were identified as protective factors for bowel air bubbles. Anxiety is an independent risk factor of bowel air bubbles in colonoscopy diagnosis. Medical professionals should be mindful of this prior to performing colonoscopy.