Establishment of a risk prediction model for bowel preparation failure prior to colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the factors that contribute to the failure of bowel preparation in patients undergoing colonoscopy and to develop a risk prediction model. METHODS: A total of 1115 outpatients were included. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: the modeling group (669 patients) and the validation group (446 patients). In the modeling group, patients were further divided into two groups based on their success and failure in bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. A logistic regression analysis model was used to determine the risk factors of bowel preparation failure, which was subsequently visualized using an alignment diagram. RESULTS: After controlling for relevant confounders, multifactorial logistic regression results showed that age ≥ 60 years (OR = 2.246), male (OR = 2.449), body mass index ≥ 24 (OR = 2.311), smoking (OR = 2.467), chronic constipation (OR = 5.199), diabetes mellitus (OR = 5.396) and history of colorectal surgery (OR = 5.170) were influencing factors of bowel preparation failure. The area under the ROC curve was 0.732 in the modeling group and 0.713 in the validation group. According to the calibration plot, the predictive effect of the model and the actual results were in good agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Age ≥ 60 years, male, body mass index ≥ 24, smoking, chronic constipation, diabetes mellitus, and history of colorectal surgery are independent risk factors for bowel preparation failure. The established prediction model has a good predictive efficacy and can be used as a simple and effective tool for screening patients at high risk for bowel preparation failure.

Preparation Regimens to Improve Capsule Endoscopy visualization and diagnostic yield (PrepRICE); a multicentric randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines recommend bowel preparation before small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). However, the optimal protocol is yet to be defined. To determine the best timing for preparation in SBCE, we compared small-bowel visualization quality (SBVQ), diagnostic yield (DY), and patient-reported outcomes across four purgative regimens. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized (1:1:1:1), multicentric study, patients with suspected small bowel bleeding were randomized into four arms: G1 (1L of polyethylene-glycol + ascorbic acid [Moviprep®] the night before SBCE), G2 (1L in the morning, up to 2 hours before SBCE), G3 (0.5L up to 2 hours before + 0.5L after the capsule reached the duodenum), and G4 (1L after reaching the duodenum). To assess DY, lesions were categorized as having high (P2) or low (P0 or P1) bleeding potential. Small-bowel visualization quality (SBVQ) was assessed using the Brotz score. Transit times (TT) were measured, and patient tolerability was scored from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating better tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 387 patients were included; 59% female with a median age of 73 years (IQR 23). The exam completion rate was lower in G1 (90%, p<0.001). Small bowel TT was shorter for patients receiving purgative during SBCE (G3 and G4, p=0.001). SBVQ was better in patients receiving purgative after reaching the SB (p<0.001): median of 7 for G1, 8 for G2, and 9 for G3 and G4. The overall DY of patients receiving intra-procedure purgatives (G3 + G4) was superior (42.7 vs 31.3%, p=0.02); significant differences were found in the second and third terciles. Likewise, G3 and G4 had higher angioectasia detection (p=0.04). Patients' satisfaction was significantly superior for G4 (median 4 points, IQR 1). CONCLUSIONS: The group that received the bowel preparation the night before SBCE had poorer outcomes. Intra-procedure purgative regimens reduced SBTT, enhanced visualization, improved DY, and increased angioectasia detection. G4 was the best-tolerated regimen.

Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of elobixibat plus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate and split-dose 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation before outpatient colonoscopy: a study protocol for the multicentre, randomised, controlled E-PLUS trial.

BACKGROUND: Sodium picosulfate (SP)/magnesium citrate (MC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid are recommended by Western guidelines as laxative solutions for bowel preparation. Clinically, SP/MC has a slower post-dose defaecation response than PEG and is perceived as less cleansing; therefore, it is not currently used for major bowel cancer screening preparation. The standard formulation for bowel preparation is PEG; however, a large dose is required, and it has a distinctive flavour that is considered unpleasant. SP/MC requires a small dose and ensures fluid intake because it is administered in another beverage. Therefore, clinical trials have shown that SP/MC is superior to PEG in terms of acceptability. We aim to compare the novel bowel cleansing method (test group) comprising SP/MC with elobixibat hydrate and the standard bowel cleansing method comprising PEG plus ascorbic acid (standard group) for patients preparing for outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: This phase III, multicentre, single-blind, noninferiority, randomised, controlled, trial has not yet been completed. Patients aged 40-69 years will be included as participants. Patients with a history of abdominal or pelvic surgery, constipation, inflammatory bowel disease, or severe organ dysfunction will be excluded. The target number of research participants is 540 (standard group, 270 cases; test group, 270 cases). The primary endpoint is the degree of bowel cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score ≥ 6). The secondary endpoints are patient acceptability, adverse events, polyp/adenoma detection rate, number of polyps/adenomas detected, degree of bowel cleansing according to the BBPS (BBPS score ≥ 8), degree of bowel cleansing according to the Aronchik scale, and bowel cleansing time. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to develop a "patient-first" colon cleansing regimen without the risk of inadequate bowel preparation by using both elobixibat hydrate and SP/MC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT; no. s041210067; 9 September 2021; https://jrct.niph.go.jp/ ), protocol version 1.5 (May 1, 2023).

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

BACKGROUND: Different 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). METHODS: 240 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. RESULTS: A 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). CONCLUSION: While 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.

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation. METHODS: A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

One-day versus three-day low-residue diet bowel preparation regimens before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although studies have shown that the quality of bowel preparation with low-residue diet (LRD) is as effective as that of clear fluid diet (CLD), there is currently no consensus on how long an LRD should last. The aim of this study was to compare a 1-day versus 3-day LRD on bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic review search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane database from inception to April 2023. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared 1-day with 3-day LRD bowel cleansing regiments for patients undergoing colonoscopy. The rate of adequate bowel preparation, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, willingness to repeat preparation, and adverse events were estimated using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We also performed meta-analysis to identify risk factors and predictors of inadequate preparation. RESULTS: Four studies published between 2019 and 2023 with 1927 participants were included. The present meta-analysis suggested that 1-day LRD was comparable with 3-day LRD for adequate bowel preparation (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65-1.21; P = 0.45; I2 = 0%; P = 0.52). The polyp detection rate (OR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P = 0.52; I2 = 23%; P = 0.27) and adenoma detection rate (OR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.08; P = 0.21; I2 = 0%; P = 0.52) were similar between the groups. There were significantly higher odds of tolerability in patients consuming 1-day LRD compared with 3-day LRD (OR 1.64; 95% CI, 1.13-2.39; P < 0.01; I2 = 47%; P = 0.15). In addition, constipation was identified as the independent predictor of inadequate preparation (OR 1.98; 95% CI, 1.27-3.11; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%; P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that a 1-day LRD was as effective as a 3-day CLD in the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy and significantly improved tolerability of patients. In addition, constipation is an independent risk factor of poor bowel preparation, and the duration of LRD in patients with constipation still needs further clinical trials.

A novel strategy for improving bowel preparation based on social software-enhanced education: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The compliance and timeliness of oral laxatives have always been the key factors restricting bowel preparation (BP). We have constructed a novel enhanced-educational content and process based on social software (SS) for BP to optimize these issues. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted at 13 hospitals in China from December 2019 to December 2020. A total of 1774 enrollees received standard instructions for BP and were randomly assigned (1:1) to the SS group (SSG) that received a smartphone-based enhanced-education strategy starting 4 h before colonoscopy or the control group (CG). RESULTS: A total of 3034 consecutive outpatient colonoscopy patients were assessed for eligibility, and 1774 were enrolled and randomly assigned. Ultimately, data from 1747 (SSG vs CG: 875 vs 872) enrollees were collected. The BP adequacy rate was 92.22% (95% CI: 90.46-93.98) in the SSG vs 88.05% (95% CI: 85.91-90.18) in the CG (P = 0.005), and the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores (6.89 ± 1.15 vs 6.67 ± 1.15, P < 0.001) of those in the SSG were significantly higher than those in the CG. The average number of polyps detected in the SSG was considerably higher than that in the CG (0.84 ± 2.00 vs 0.53 ± 1.19, P = 0.037), and the average diameter of the polyps was significantly lower than that of the control group (4.0 ± 2.5 vs 4.9 ± 3.7, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This SS-enhanced education strategy can improve the BP adequacy rate and increase the average number of polyps detected, especially those of small diameter.

Is mechanical bowel preparation necessary to reduce surgical site infection following colon surgery? Protocol for a multicentre Canadian randomized controlled trial.

AIM: There is significant practice variation with respect to the use of bowel preparation to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) following colon surgery. Although intravenous antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation + oral antibiotics (IVA + MBP + OA) has been shown to be superior to IVA + MBP and IVA, there are insufficient high-quality data from randomized controlled trails (RCTs) that directly compare these options. This is an important question, because if IVA + OA has similar effectiveness to IVA + MBP + OA, mechanical bowel preparation can be safely omitted, and the associated side effects avoided. The aim of this work is to compare rates of SSI following IVA + OA + MBP (MBP) versus IVA + OA (OA) for elective colon surgery. METHOD: This is a multicentre, parallel, two-arm, noninferiority RCT comparing IVA + OA + MBP versus IVA + OA. The primary outcome is the overall rate of SSI 30 days following surgery. Secondary outcomes are length of stay and 30-day emergency room visit and readmission rates. The planned sample size is 1062 subjects with four participating high-volume centres. Overall SSI rates 30 days following surgery between the treatment groups will be compared using a general linear model. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with linear regression for continuous outcomes, logistic regression for binary outcomes and modified Poisson regression for count data. CONCLUSION: It is expected that IVA + OA will work similarly to IVA + MBP + OA and that this work will provide definitive evidence showing that MBP is not necessary to reduce SSI. This is highly relevant to both patients and physicians as it will have the potential to significantly change practice and outcomes following colon surgery in Canada and beyond.

Bowel preparation for elective colectomy in Crohn's disease: results from a global cohort study using the NSQIP database.

AIM: The role of bowel preparation before colectomy in Crohn's disease patients remains controversial. This retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation in patients diagnosed with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy. METHOD: Data were collected from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participant user files from 2016 to 2021. A total of 6244 patients with Crohn's disease who underwent elective colectomy were included. The patients were categorized into two groups: those who received combined colon preparation (mechanical and antibiotic) and those who did not receive any form of bowel preparation. The primary outcomes assessed were the rate of anastomotic leak and the occurrence of deep organ infection. Secondary outcomes included all-cause short-term mortality, clinical-related morbidity, ostomy creation, unplanned reoperation, operative time, hospital length of stay and ileus. RESULTS: Combined colon preparation was associated with significantly reduced risks of anastomotic leak (relative risk 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.95, P = 0.021) and deep organ infection (relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.83, P < 0.001). Additionally, patients who underwent colon preparation had lower rates of ostomy creation, shorter hospital stays and a decreased incidence of ileus. However, there was no significant difference in all-cause short-term mortality or the need for unplanned reoperation between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that mechanical and antibiotic colon preparation may have clinical benefits for patients with Crohn's disease undergoing elective colectomy.

Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence demonstrates minimal impact of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on reducing postoperative complications following elective colectomy. This study investigated the necessity of MBP prior to elective colonic resection. METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing the effects of MBP with no preparation before elective colectomy, up until May 26, 2023. Surgical-related outcomes were compiled and subsequently analyzed. The primary outcomes included the incidence of anastomosis leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI), analyzed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3). RESULTS: The analysis included 14 studies, comprising seven RCTs with 5146 participants. Demographic information was consistent across groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of AL ((P = 0.43, OR = 1.16, 95% CI (0.80, 1.68), I2 = 0%) or SSI (P = 0.47, OR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.73, 1.96), I2 = 0%), nor were there significant differences in other outcomes. Subgroup analysis on oral antibiotic use showed no significant changes in results. However, in cases of right colectomy, the group without preparation showed a significantly lower incidence of SSI (P = 0.01, OR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.86), I2 = 1%). No significant differences were found in other subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: The current evidence robustly indicates that MBP before elective colectomy does not confer significant benefits in reducing postoperative complications. Therefore, it is justified to forego MBP prior to elective colectomy, irrespective of tumor location.

Effect of bowel preparation completion time on bowel cleansing efficacy: Prospective randomized controlled trial of different bowel preparation completion times precolonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: The elapse time between the completion of bowel cleansing and colonoscopy is one of the important factors for proper bowel cleansing. Although several studies have reported that a short time interval resulted in a favorable bowel cleansing, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been conducted to determine the effect of the elapse time. Consequently, we performed an RCT to investigate the efficacy of bowel preparation of participants who underwent colonoscopy according to the different time intervals between the completion of bowel preparation and colonoscopy. METHODS: In this single-center RCT, study participants were randomized to complete bowel preparation either 2-4 h or 4-8 h before colonoscopy. The primary end-point was successful bowel preparation, rated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). RESULTS: A total of 504 individuals were included (2-4 h, 255; 4-8 h, 249). The rate of successful bowel preparation in the 2-4 h group showed noninferiority compared with that of the 4-8 h group (97.6% vs. 95.2%; rate difference, 2.5% [-0.8% to 5.7%]; Pfor noninferiority < 0.001, Pfor superiority = 0.136). The rate for perfect cleansing (a BBPS score of 9) was higher in the 2-4 h group (56.5% vs. 39.8%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: When bowel cleansing was finished 2-4 h before the start of colonoscopy, the overall bowel cleansing was noninferior, and perfect cleansing was superior, compared to that when cleansing was finished 4-8 h before colonoscopy.

Smartphone application for artificial intelligence-based evaluation of stool state during bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Colonoscopy (CS) is an important screening method for the early detection and removal of precancerous lesions. The stool state during bowel preparation (BP) should be properly evaluated to perform CS with sufficient quality. This study aimed to develop a smartphone application (app) with an artificial intelligence (AI) model for stool state evaluation during BP and to investigate whether the use of the app could maintain an adequate quality of CS. METHODS: First, stool images were collected in our hospital to develop the AI model and were categorized into grade 1 (solid or muddy stools), grade 2 (cloudy watery stools), and grade 3 (clear watery stools). The AI model for stool state evaluation (grades 1-3) was constructed and internally verified using the cross-validation method. Second, a prospective study was conducted on the quality of CS using the app in our hospital. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients who achieved Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) ≥6 among those who successfully used the app. RESULTS: The AI model showed mean accuracy rates of 90.2%, 65.0%, and 89.3 for grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The prospective study enrolled 106 patients and revealed that 99.0% (95% confidence interval 95.3-99.9%) of patients achieved a BBPS ≥6. CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients with BBPS ≥6 during CS using the developed app exceeded the set expected value. This app could contribute to the performance of high-quality CS in clinical practice.

Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale.

AIMS: Patients' perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8±13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P<0.001), although fair (k=0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: The cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning. Registration number of the trial: NCT03830489.

The effect of preoperative mechanical bowel preparation in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound related complications: A meta-analysis.

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), a routine nursing procedure before paediatric bowel surgery, is widely should in clinical practice, but its necessity remains controversial. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the effect of preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery on postoperative wound-related complications in order to analyse the clinical application value of MBP in paediatric bowel surgery. As of November 2023, we searched four online databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. Two investigators screened the collected studies against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and ROBINS-I was used to evaluate the quality of studies. Using RevMan5.3, a meta-analysis of the collected data was performed, and a fixed-effect model or a random-effect model was used to analyse OR, 95% CI, SMD, and MD. A total of 11 studies with 2556 patients were included. Most of studies had moderate-to-severe quality bias. The results of meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications related to postoperative infections in children with MBP before bowel surgery versus those with No MBP, wound infection (OR 1.11, 95% CI:0.76 ~ 1.61, p = 0.59, I2 = 5%), intra-abdominal infection (OR 1.26, 95% CI:0.58 ~ 2.77, p = 0.56, I2 = 9%). There was no significant difference in the risk of postoperative bowel anastomotic leak (OR 1.07, 95% CI:0.68 ~ 1.68, p = 0.78, I2 = 12%), and anastomotic dehiscence (OR 1.67, 95% CI:0.13 ~ 22.20, p = 0.70, I2 = 73%). Patients' intestinal obstruction did not show an advantage of undergoing MBP preoperatively, with an incidence of intestinal obstruction (OR 1.95, 95% CI:0.55 ~ 6.93, p = 0.30, I2 = 0%). Based on existing evidence that preoperative MBP in paediatric bowel surgery did not reduce the risk of postoperative wound complications, we cautiously assume that MBP before surgery is unnecessary for children undergoing elective bowel surgery. However, due to the limited number of study participants selected for this study and the overall low quality of evidence, the results need to be interpreted with caution. It is suggested that more high quality, large-sample, multicenter clinical trials are required to validate our findings.

Association of bowel preparation with surgical-site infection in gynecologic oncology surgery: Post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between bowel preparation and surgical-site infection (SSI) incidence following colorectal resection during gynecologic oncology surgery. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis used data from a randomized controlled trial of patients enrolled from 03/01/2016-08/20/2019 with presumed gynecologic malignancy investigating negative-pressure wound therapy among those requiring laparotomy. Patients were treated preoperatively without bowel preparation, oral antibiotic bowel preparation (OABP), or OABP plus mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) per surgeon preference. Univariate and multivariable analyses with stepwise model selection for SSI were performed for confirmed gynecologic malignancies requiring colorectal resection. RESULTS: Of 161 cases, 15 (9%) had no preparation, 39 (24%) OABP only, and 107 (66%) OABP+MBP. The overall SSI rate was 19% (n = 31)-53% (n = 8/15) in the no preparation, 21% (n = 8/39) in the OABP alone, and 14% (n = 15/107) in the OABP+MBP groups (P = 0.003). The difference between OABP and OABP+MBP was non-significant (P = 0.44). The median length of stay was 9 (range, 6-12), 6 (range, 5-8), and 7 days (range, 6-10), respectively (P = 0.045). The overall complication rate (34%; n = 54) did not significantly vary by preparation type (P = 0.23). On univariate logistic regression analysis, OABP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06-0.80) and OABP+MBP (OR, 0.14; 95% CI: 0.04-0.45) were associated with decreased SSI risk compared to no preparation (P = 0.004). On multivariate analysis, both methods of preparation retained a significant impact on SSI rates (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Bowel preparation is associated with reduced SSI incidence and is beneficial for patients undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery with anticipated colorectal resection. Further investigation is needed to determine whether OABP alone is sufficient.

CT colonography: can we achieve an adequate bowel preparation without diet restriction?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if an adequate bowel preparation for CT colonography, can be achieved without diet restriction, using a reduced amount of cathartic agent and fecal tagging. To investigate the influence of patients' characteristics on bowel preparation and the impact on patients' compliance. METHODS: In total, 1446 outpatients scheduled for elective CT colonography were prospectively enrolled. All patients had the same bowel preparation based on a reduced amount of cathartic agent (120 g of macrogol in 1.5 l of water) the day before the exam and a fecal tagging agent (60 ml of hyperosmolar oral iodinated agent) the day of the exam. No dietary restrictions were imposed before the exam. The bowel preparation was evaluated using a qualitative and quantitative score. Patients were grouped by age, gender, and presence of diverticula in both scores. Patients' compliance has been evaluated with a questionnaire after the end of the exam and with a phone-calling interview the day after the exam. RESULTS: According to the qualitative score, adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 1349 patients (93.29%) and no statistical differences were observed among the subgroups of patients. Quantitative scores demonstrated that colon distension was significantly better in younger patients and without diverticula. A good patients' compliance was observed and most patients (96.5%) were willing to repeat it. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of diet restriction does not affect the quality of CTC preparation and good patient's compliance could potentially increase the participation rate in CRC screening programs. KEY POINTS: • An adequate quality bowel preparation for CT colonography can be achieved without diet restriction, using a reduced amount of cathartic agent (120 g of macrogol in 1.5 l of water) and fecal tagging (60 ml of hyperosmolar oral iodinated agent). • A bowel preparation based on the combination of a reduced amount of cathartic agent and fecal tagging, without diet restriction, allows obtaining good quality in more than 90% of patients. • The bowel preparation scheme proposed reduces the distress and discomfort experienced by the patients improving adherence to CTC.

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: NCT04948567.

Randomized clinical trial evaluating three low-volume preparations for colonoscopy in outpatients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: the EII-PREP trial.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding bowel preparation in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) are scarce. AIM: To compare efficacy, safety, and tolerability of low-volume preparations in patients with IBD. METHODS: Single-center, randomized, prescriber, and colonoscopist-blinded clinical trial. IBD outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1 Liter-polyethylene glycol-ascorbate (1L-PEG), 2 Liters-PEG, or sodium picosulfate (SP). The primary endpoint was percentage of quality cleansing assessed via the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS ≥6, segments ≥2). Secondary endpoints were total high quality cleansing (BBPS 8 or 9), high-quality segmental BBPS (≥2), and patients' tolerability, symptoms, and satisfaction, assessed by questionnaires. Safety was monitored by adverse event reporting, laboratory evaluation at colonoscopy, and telephonic follow-up. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were included (33 1L-PEG, 28 2L-PEG, and 31 SP). No significant differences between preparations were observed in quality or high-quality total BBPS or high-quality segmental BBPS. Complete intake of the solution was higher for SP (p = 0.006) and lower for 1L-PEG (p = 0.02) compared to 2L-PEG intake (p = 0.55). Clinically irrelevant hyponatremia was higher in the SP group (p < 0.0001). SP instructions were easier to understand from patient's point of view (p = 0.01). Willingness to retake was higher with SP (p < 0.0001) and less for 1L-PEG (p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: We observed no differences in efficacy between low-volume preparations in patients with IBD. Complete intake was higher for SP and lower for 1L-PEG. SP and 2L-PEG instructions were better understood and graded, and SP was more likely to be retaken. Willingness to retake was lower for 1L-PEG. No serious adverse events were reported. SUMMARY: No differences in terms of efficacy were regarded in this clinical trial comparing low-volume preparations for colonoscopy in patients with IBD: however, Sodium Pisoculfate is better tolerated and accepted from patient's point of view. No serious adverse events were reported.

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the standard and most effective screening tool for colonic diseases and the accuracy of colonoscopy depends on the quality of bowel preparation. The aim of this study was to analyze the risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients who underwent colonoscopy in 2018 and received 3 L of Polyethylene Glycol Electrolytes powder were included. They were instructed to drink 1.5 L the night before the colonoscopy and 1.5 L 4-6 h before the procedure given in doses of 250 ml every 10 min with 30 ml of simethicone given 4-6 h before the colonoscopy. Patient- and procedure-related parameters were recorded. An adequate bowel preparation was defined as all 3 segments rated 2 or 3 on the Boston Bowel Preparation scale. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 6720 patients were included in the present study. The mean age of these patients was 49.7 ± 13.0 years old. Inadequate bowel preparation was found in 233 (12.4%), 139 (6.4%), 131 (7%), 68 (8.6%) patients in spring, summer, autumn and winter respectively. On the multivariate analysis, male gender (OR: 1.295; 95% CI: 1.088-1.542; P = 0.005), inpatient status (OR: 1.377; 95% CI: 1.040-1.822; P = 0.025) and season (spring vs. winter, OR: 1.514; 95% CI: 1.139-2.012; P = 0.004) were the independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Male gender, inpatient status and spring season were the independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation. For patients with risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation, enhanced bowel preparation and instructions may help to optimize the quality of bowel preparation.