A randomized prospective study comparing the effect of low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy preparation in China.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) with or without dimethicone on bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted from April 2021 to December 2021, consecutive adult patients scheduled for colonoscopy were prospectively randomized into four groups: SPMC, SPMC plus dimethicone, 3 L PEG, and 3 L PEG plus dimethicone. Primary endpoint was colon cleansing based on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary endpoints were bubble score, time to cecal intubation, adenoma detection rate (ADR), patient safety and compliance, and adverse events. RESULTS: We enrolled 223 and 291 patients in SPMC and 3 L PEG group, respectively. The proportion with acceptable bowel cleansing, total BBPS score and cecal intubation time were similar in all four subgroups (p > 0.05). Patient-reported acceptability and tolerability was significantly greater in SPMC than 3 L PEG group (p < 0.001); adverse events were significantly lower in SPMC than latter group (p < 0.001). ADR in both groups was greater than 30%. CONCLUSION: SPMC had significantly higher acceptability and tolerability than 3 L PEG, however, was similar in terms of bowel-cleansing effect and cecal intubation time and hence can be used before colonoscopy preparation.

High-dose polyethylene glycol-3350 and gatorade solutions for patients with previous inadequate bowel preparations for colonoscopy are safe and effective.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy remains an issue resulting in lower adenoma detection rates and increased cost. We assessed the efficacy, safety and tolerability of high-dose bowel preparations in subjects who previously had an inadequate colonoscopy preparation. METHODS: We performed a multi-step prospective trial of high-dose bowel preparations with subjects assigned to the dose higher than their previous inadequate preparation. Step 1: 1.5 times the standard-dose of polyethylene glycol 3350 (PEG, 459 g) and Gatorade; and Step 2: 2.0 times the standard-dose of PEG (612 g) and Gatorade, both were given as extended split-dose preparations. 69 outpatients consumed their preparation before a morning colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was colon cleanliness assessed by the Chicago bowel preparation scale (BPS). Safety was assessed by comparing a baseline basic metabolic panel (BMP) to a post-cleansing BMP. Patients with no history of inadequate colon cleansing who consumed standard doses of PEG (306 g to 357 g) and Gatorade were used as a comparison group. Tolerability of the bowel preparation was assessed using a subject-questionnaire. RESULTS: When compared to controls consuming standard-dose bowel preparations, subjects consuming high-dose preparations had no statistically significant difference in colon cleanliness as measured by the modified or total Chicago BPS scores or differences in tolerability. Baseline and post-cleaning BMPs were not significantly different other than the BUN falling (p < 0.0001) after the preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The multi-step high-dose bowel cleansing protocol proved highly efficacious, safe and well tolerated in subjects who previously had an inadequate colonoscopy preparation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02661750.

Bariatric Bypass Surgery Is a Risk Factor for Incomplete Colonoscopy Preparation.

OBJECTIVES: Effective colon cancer screening requires adequate bowel preparation. Anecdotal evidence has suggested that patients with a history of bariatric surgery are more likely to have inadequate preparation. This study aims to evaluate the role of bariatric surgery as a predictive risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively for consecutive colonoscopies between March 1, 2013, and November 15, 2017. Only the index colonoscopy for each patient within the review period, and those scored using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) were included. Inadequate preparation was defined as any one or more colon segments with a BBPS score of less than two, and patients with a history of bariatric surgery were identified using ICD 9/10 codes. Multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching was used to assess for independent factors predictive of inadequate bowel preparation. RESULTS: A total of 25,318 colonoscopies were included in the analysis. Two hundred 278 (1.1%) patients had a history of bariatric surgery, among which 171 (61.5%) had a history of bypass surgery and 107 (38.5%) had a history of restrictive surgical procedure. A history of bariatric surgery was predictive of inadequate bowel preparation in both univariate (OR: 2.87, 95% CI: 1.92-4.29, P = 0.0003) and multivariate analysis (OR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.43-3.27, P = 0.0003) after controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. When evaluated separately, a history of bypass surgery was associated with inadequate bowel preparation (aOR: 2.96, 95% CI: 1.86-4.72, P < 0.0001), whereas a history of a restrictive bariatric surgery was not associated with inadequate bowel preparation in multivariate analysis (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.4-2.45, P = 0.971). CONCLUSIONS: A history of bariatric surgery is an independent risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation. Furthermore, bypass bariatric surgeries had higher rates of inadequate preparation when compared to restrictive bariatric surgeries. Further quality improvement initiatives should be directed at identifying the appropriate bowel preparation regimen in this population.

A multicenter, prospective, inpatient feasibility study to evaluate the use of an intra-colonoscopy cleansing device to optimize colon preparation in hospitalized patients: the REDUCE study.

BACKGROUND: High quality bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy can be difficult to achieve in the inpatient setting. Hospitalized patients are at risk for extended hospital stays and low diagnostic yield due to inadequate bowel preparation. The Pure-Vu System is a novel device intended to fit over existing colonoscopes to improve intra-colonoscopy bowel preparation. The objective of the REDUCE study was to conduct the first inpatient study to evaluate optimization of bowel preparation quality following overnight preparation when using the Pure-Vu System during colonoscopy. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective feasibility study enrolled hospitalized subjects undergoing colonoscopy. Subjects recorded the clarity of their last bowel movement using a 5-point scale prior to colonoscopy. After one night of preparation, all enrolled subjects underwent colonoscopy utilizing the Pure-Vu System. The primary endpoint was improvement of colon cleanliness from baseline to post-cleansing with the Pure-Vu System as assessed by the improvement in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). An exploratory analysis was conducted to assess whether the clarity of the last bowel movement could predict inadequate bowel preparation. RESULTS: Ninety-four subjects were included. BBPS analyses showed significant improvements in bowel preparation quality across all evaluable colon segments after cleansing with Pure-Vu, including left colon (1.74 vs 2.89; p < 0.0001), transverse colon (1.74 vs 2.91; p < 0.0001), and the right colon (1.41 vs 2.88; p < 0.0001). Prior to Pure-Vu, adequate cleansing (BBPS scores of ≥ 2) were reported in 60%, 62%, and 47% for the left colon, transverse colon, and right colon segments, respectively. After intra-colonoscopy cleansing with the Pure-Vu System, adequate colon preparation was reported in 100%, 99%, and 97% of the left colon, transverse colon, and right colon segments, respectively. Subjects with lower bowel movement clarity scores were more likely to have inadequate bowel preparation prior to cleansing with Pure-Vu. CONCLUSIONS: In this feasibility study, the Pure-Vu System appears to be effective in significantly improving bowel preparation quality in hospitalized subjects undergoing colonoscopy. Clarity of last bowel movement may be useful indicator in predicting poor bowel preparation. Larger studies powered to evaluate clinical outcomes, hospital costs, and blinded BBPS assessments are required to evaluate the significance of these findings. Trial registration Evaluation of the Bowel Cleansing in Hospitalized Patients Using Pure-Vu System (NCT03503162).

Effect of bowel preparation volume in inpatient colonoscopy. Results of a prospective, randomized, comparative pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). RESULTS: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

LONGER CECUM INSERTION TIME AND MORE INADEQUATE COLONIC PREPARATION IN PATIENTS WITH ACROMEGALY: IS A DIFFERENT COLONOSCOPY PREPARATION NEEDED?

PURPOSE: To investigate whether there is a difference between acromegalic and non-acromegalic cases in terms of bowel preparation and colonoscopic intervention. METHODS: Patients with controlled and uncontrolled acromegaly and as a control group (CG) patients without acromegaly between January 2010 and March 2014 were included. Groups were compared regarding adequacy of bowel preparation, cecal insertion time (CIT) and colonoscopy results. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients with acromegaly (controlled n=30, uncontrolled n=29) and 73 age and gender matched volunteers without acromegaly were evaluated. CIT in cases with controlled, uncontrolled acromegaly cases and in CG was 5.33 [4.00-6.00], 7.00 [4.91-11.31], and 3.10 [2.35-4.65] minutes, respectively (p<0.001). Cases in CG had shorter CIT compared to controlled and uncontrolled acromegaly cases ( p=0.014 and p<0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference regarding CIT between controlled and uncontrolled acromegaly cases (p=0.247). Six (20%) of controlled acromegaly patients, 10 (35%) of uncontrolled acromegaly patients and three (4%) of CG had inadequate bowel cleansing (p<0.001). Although statistically insignificant, cases with inadequate bowel cleansing had tendency towards having prolonged CIT in comparison to cases with adequate bowel cleansing (6.00 [3.87-9.00] and 4.16 [2.95-5.70] minutes, respectively, p=0.07). CONCLUSION: Inadequate bowel cleansing is one of the main problems encountered during colonoscopic investigation/surveillance in acromegalic patients. Therefore, a different protocol for colonoscopy preparation may be needed for these cases.

A randomized controlled trial comparing a prepackaged low-residue diet with a restricted diet for colonoscopy preparation: the impact on the results of colonoscopy in adenoma detection.

AIM: This study aimed to investigate the clinical utility of a prepackaged low-residue diet (PLD) compared with a restricted diet (RD) for colonoscopic bowel preparation. METHOD: A prospective randomized controlled trial was carried out with patients undergoing colonoscopy. One hundred patients were randomly assigned to PLD and RD groups. In the RD group, the patients received an information sheet containing acceptable low-residue options and instructions from the medical staff. All patients received 10 ml sodium picosulphate the day before colonoscopy and 1 l of polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-A) on the day of the colonoscopy. If the bowel preparation was not adequate, an additional PEG-A solution was given. The primary outcome was the efficacy of colonic cleansing as rated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The additional amount of PEG-A solution, adenoma detection rate and patient tolerance were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The BBPS score in the PLD group was 7.3 ± 1.7 compared with 6.5 ± 1.7 in the RD group. The quality of bowel preparation was significantly better in the PLD group (P < 0.05). The mean amount of additional PEG-A solution in the PLD group was smaller than in the RD group (293.8 ± 474.8 vs 444.1 ± 625.0 ml), but there was no statistical difference between the two groups. Adenoma detection rates and patient tolerance were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Prepackaged low-residue diets PLD is superior to RD for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Outcomes of Next-Day Versus Non-next-Day Colonoscopy After an Initial Inadequate Bowel Preparation.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate bowel preparation is the most common cause of failed colonoscopy, and repeat failure occurs in more than 20 % of follow-up attempts. Limited data suggest that next-day follow-up may reduce the risk for repeat inadequate preparation. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate differences in prep quality with next-day follow-up after initial inadequate preparation. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Academic center. PATIENTS: Outpatient screening and surveillance colonoscopies between 7/2002 and 6/2007. INTERVENTION: Comparison of next-day versus any other day ("non-next-day") repeat colonoscopy outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Aronchick scale, polyp and adenoma detection rates. RESULTS: Of 20,798 initial colonoscopies, 857 (4.1 %) had inadequate preparation. 460 (54 %) were lost to follow-up. One hundred and fourteen (13 %) had next-day and 283 (33 %) had non-next-day colonoscopy with mean follow-up of 8.8 months. On follow-up examination, 29.8 % of next-day and 23.3 % of non-next-day colonoscopies had inadequate bowel preparation (p = 0.48). The adenoma detection rate for the next-day group improved from 3.5 to 38.6 % on follow-up, compared to 20.5 and 36.8 % in the non-next-day group. There was no significant difference between groups in detection of total adenoma (p = 0.73) or advanced adenomas (p = 0.20) on follow-up examinations. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, differences in baseline colonoscopy characteristics. CONCLUSION: The results confirm the need for repeat examination after a colonoscopy with inadequate bowel prep, as there was substantial increase in adenoma detection on follow-up. There were no differences in outcomes between next-day versus non-next-day colonoscopy. These data support repeating after inadequate colonoscopy within 1 year as convenient for patient and physician.

Association between body mass index and quality of split bowel preparation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about the association between obesity and bowel preparation. We investigated whether body mass index (BMI) is an independent risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation in patients who receive split preparation regimens. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of data from 2163 consecutive patients (mean age, 60.6 ± 10.5 y; 93.8% male) who received outpatient colonoscopies in 2009 at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. All patients received a split preparation, categorized as adequate (excellent or good, based on the Aronchick scale) or inadequate. We performed a multivariable analysis to identify factors independently associated with inadequate preparation. RESULTS: Bowel preparation quality was inadequate for 44.2% of patients; these patients had significantly higher mean BMIs than patients with adequate preparation (31.2 ± 6.5 vs 29.8 ± 5.9, respectively; P < .0001) and Charlson comorbidity scores (1.5 ± 1.6 vs 1.1 ± 1.4; P < .0001). Independent risk factors for inadequate preparation were a BMI of 30 kg/m(2) or greater (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.75; P < .0001), use of tobacco (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.07-1.54; P = .0084) or narcotics (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .0179), hypertension (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57; P = .0085), diabetes (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.69; P = .0021), and dementia (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.22-7.49; P = .0169). CONCLUSIONS: BMI is an independent factor associated with inadequate split bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Additional factors associated with quality of bowel preparation include diabetes, hypertension, dementia, and use of tobacco and narcotics. Patients with BMIs of 30 kg/m(2) or greater should be considered for more intensive preparation regimens.

Loose Screws: Removal of Foreign Bodies From the Lower Gastrointestinal Tract.

While both the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) have released guidelines on the management of ingested foreign bodies in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract, neither has addressed indications or techniques for endoscopic removal of foreign bodies in the lower GI tract, perhaps due to the high likelihood of foreign body passage once the foreign body has reached the lower GI tract. We present the case of a 45-year-old woman presenting to the emergency department following the intentional ingestion of multiple screws and nails, complaining of acute abdominal pain and nausea. Imaging revealed four nails in the colon and two adjacent screws in the distal small bowel. In the absence of signs of acute obstruction or bowel perforation, she was admitted for expectant management but subsequently required endoscopic removal of two retained screws in the lower GI tract.

Use of U-Net Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated Segmentation of Fecal Material for Objective Evaluation of Bowel Preparation Quality in Colonoscopy.

Background: Adequate bowel cleansing is important for colonoscopy performance evaluation. Current bowel cleansing evaluation scales are subjective, with a wide variation in consistency among physicians and low reported rates of accuracy. We aim to use machine learning to develop a fully automatic segmentation method for the objective evaluation of the adequacy of colon preparation. Methods: Colonoscopy videos were retrieved from a video data cohort and transferred to qualified images, which were randomly divided into training, validation, and verification datasets. The fecal residue was manually segmented. A deep learning model based on the U-Net convolutional network architecture was developed to perform automatic segmentation. The performance of the automatic segmentation was evaluated on the overlap area with the manual segmentation. Results: A total of 10,118 qualified images from 119 videos were obtained. The model averaged 0.3634 s to segmentate one image automatically. The models produced a strong high-overlap area with manual segmentation, with 94.7% ± 0.67% of that area predicted by our AI model, which correlated well with the area measured manually (r = 0.915, p < 0.001). The AI system can be applied in real-time qualitatively and quantitatively. Conclusions: We established a fully automatic segmentation method to rapidly and accurately mark the fecal residue-coated mucosa for the objective evaluation of colon preparation.

Magnesium Citrate Capsules in Colonoscopy Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Screening colonoscopies are recommended for the detection and prevention of colon cancer. Liquid colonoscopy preparations may be poorly tolerated. We evaluated the adequacy and tolerability of a novel low-cost colonoscopy preparation consisting of magnesium citrate capsules and bisacodyl (MCCB). METHODS: This is a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial of 51 patients undergoing screening colonoscopies, who received a bowel preparation of either 4 liters of GoLYTELY (Braintree Laboratories, Inc., Braintree, MA) or MCCB. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate colon cleanliness, defined as a total score ≥ 6 on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and no colon segment with a score of zero. The secondary outcome was patient satisfaction, assessed by a validated questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 100% of patients in both arms achieved adequate colon cleanliness, and the magnesium citrate arm had superior patient satisfaction (mean satisfaction score: 54.8 vs. 172.8; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A pill-based colonoscopy preparation of MCCB may be a low-cost option for patients reluctant to consume a liquid preparation.

Polyethylene glycol plus bisacodyl: A safe, cheap, and effective regimen for colonoscopy in the South Asian patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Data regarding the comparison of colonoscopic preparation regimens are still variable. We aimed to assess the adequacy and tolerability of two bowel preparation regimens for afternoon colonoscopy. METHODS: In a randomized, investigator-blinded trial, two preparation regimens [4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol-electrolytes (PEG-ELS) and 2-L PEG-ELS plus bisacodyl) were compared in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and adverse effects. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) age (years) of the 4-L split-dose PEG-ELS group (N = 147) and the 2-L PEG-ELS plus bisacodyl (N = 155) were 44.09 (±15.62) (M:F : 2:1) and 44.12 years (±15.61) (M:F : 1.7:1), respectively. Percentage of patients with excellent and good preparation was higher in the 4-L split-dose PEG-ELS regimen compared with the 2-L PEG-ELS plus bisacodyl regimen (22.44 vs 17.41 and 44.21% vs 36.12%). Percentage of patients with fair and poor preparation was lower in 4-L split-dose PEG-ELS regimen compared with the 2-L PEG-ELS plus bisacodyl regimen (21.08% vs 27.74% and 12.24% vs 18.70%). In comparison with the 2-L PEG-ELS plus bisacodyl group, the incidences of abdominal pain (11% vs 15%), bloating (9% vs 12.24%), nausea/vomiting (8.38% vs 9.52%), and sleep disturbance (11% vs 12%) were slightly more common in the 4-L split-dose PEG-ELS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two regimens with regard to bowel cleansing efficacy and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-L PEG-ELS plus bisacodyl (10 mg) preparation is as efficacious as the 4-L split-dose PEG-ELS regimen for afternoon colonoscopy. Optimal preparation for colonoscopy can be achieved with the 2-L PEG-ELS plus bisacodyl regimen with slightly fewer adverse events and lower cost compared to the 4-L split-dose PEG-ELS regimen.

A Smartphone App for Improvement of Colonoscopy Preparation (ColoprAPP): Development and Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Optimal bowel preparation is one of the major cornerstones for quality of colonoscopy. But poor bowel preparation still occurs in 10% to 25% of all patients. To optimize patient guidance, we developed a new smartphone app (ColoprAPP) for Android smartphones which guides and accompanies the patient starting 4 days before colonoscopy throughout the whole colonoscopy preparation procedure. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the function of a newly developed smartphone app for supporting colonoscopy preparation. METHODS: We carried out a prospective feasibility study including 25 patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy at our hospital. As a control, we retrieved the data of 25 patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy matching in age, sex, and indication for colonoscopy from our colonoscopy database. Patients were asked to download the smartphone app, ColoprAPP, in addition to being given the regular colonoscopy preparation leaflet. All colonoscopies were performed in the morning after using a split-dose preparation containing a polyethlene glycol-based purgative. The study was designed to test feasibility of the prototype, evaluate grade of bowel cleanliness (Boston bowel preparation scale [BBPS]), and assess patient satisfaction with the app. RESULTS: The smartphone app use was feasible in all patients. BBPS count as a marker for grade of bowel preparation was significantly higher in the smartphone app-supported group (mean 8.1 [SD 0.3] vs 7.1 [SD 0.4], P=.02). Left (mean 2.8 [SD 0.1] vs 2.4 [SD 0.11], P=.02) and transverse colon (mean 2.8 [SD 0.07] vs 2.4 [SD 0.11], P<.001) revealed significantly higher BBPS counts in the smartphone app-supported group than in controls. Patient satisfaction with a smartphone app-supported colonoscopy preparation was high with an average numeric rating scale score for usefulness of 8.2 (visual analog scale 1-10). CONCLUSIONS: A novel developed smartphone app for reinforced education of bowel cleansing was feasible and led to high BBPS scores and patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02512328; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02512328 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6sz3Kk26z).

Comparison of claims data on hospitalization rates and repeat procedures in patients receiving a bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents. Primary endpoints were rates of procedure-associated hospitalizations, diagnosis at hospitalization, and rates of early repeat screenings. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases, which contain fully adjudicated, de-identified, medical- and prescription-drug claims, as well as demographic and enrollment information for individuals with commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare supplemental insurance coverage. Patients who had a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy over a 3-year period were identified using International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification procedure codes, recorded on claims from physicians and facilities. First, screening colonoscopy was identified for each patient, and the study was limited to those patients who could be observed for ≥6 months before and 3 months after the screening procedure. Total number of hospitalizations and rates of early repeat screenings were evaluated for all patients who received sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate and compared with those who received other bowel-preparation agents. Individual prescription medications that could affect the outcome of the cleansing agent were identified; further evaluations were made to establish whether patients had comorbid conditions, such as chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, or psychiatric illness. Statistical methods included descriptive statistics, two-tailed t-tests, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 566,628 procedures were identified in the MarketScan databases and included in the study. Sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate performed well in terms of safety outcomes, with no hospitalizations due to diagnosis of hyponatremia, dehydration, or other fluid disorders in the 10 days after procedure. Early repeat rates among sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate patients were comparable with rates observed for all other cleansing agents. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of colorectal screening using sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate were not significantly different compared with other prescription bowel-preparation agents.

Development and Testing of an Automated 4-Day Text Messaging Guidance as an Aid for Improving Colonoscopy Preparation.

BACKGROUND: In gastroenterology a sufficient colon cleansing improves adenoma detection rate and prevents the need for preterm repeat colonoscopies due to invalid preparation. It has been shown that patient education is of major importance for improvement of colon cleansing. OBJECTIVE: Objective of this study was to assess the function of an automated text messaging (short message service, SMS)-supported colonoscopy preparation starting 4 days before colonoscopy appointment. METHODS: After preevaluation to assess mobile phone usage in the patient population for relevance of this approach, a Web-based, automated SMS text messaging system was developed, following which a single-center feasibility study at a tertiary care center was performed. Patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy were invited to participate. Patients enrolled in the study group received automated information about dietary recommendations and bowel cleansing during colonoscopy preparation. Data of outpatient colonoscopies with regular preparation procedure were used for pair matching and served as control. Primary end point was feasibility of SMS text messaging support in colonoscopy preparation assessed as stable and satisfactory function of the system. Secondary end points were quality of bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and patient satisfaction with SMS text messaging-provided information assessed by a questionnaire. RESULTS: Web-based SMS text messaging-supported colonoscopy preparation was successful and feasible in 19 of 20 patients. Mean (standard error of the mean, SEM) total BBPS score was slightly higher in the SMS group than in the control group (7.3, SEM 0.3 vs 6.4, SEM 0.2) and for each colonic region (left, transverse, and right colon). Patient satisfaction regarding SMS text messaging-based information was high. CONCLUSIONS: Using SMS for colonoscopy preparation with 4 days' guidance including dietary recommendation is a new approach to improve colonoscopy preparation. Quality of colonoscopy preparation was sufficient and patients were highly satisfied with the system during colonoscopy preparation.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy using standard vs reduced doses of sodium phosphate: A single-blind randomized controlled study.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of a colonoscopy preparation that utilizes a reduced dose of sodium phosphate (NaP) and an adjunct. METHODS: Sixty-two patients requiring screening colonoscopies were studied. Each patient was randomly allocated to receive either 50 NaP tablets (50 g) or 30 NaP tablets (30 g) with 10 mL of 0.75% sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation. NaP was administered at a rate of five tablets (5 g) or three tablets (3 g) every 15 min with 200 mL of water, beginning five to six hours before colonoscopy. The sodium picosulfate was administered with 200 mL of water on the night before the procedure. Both groups were compared in term of the efficacies of colonic cleansing, the time required for completion of the bowel preparation, and acceptability of the preparation. RESULTS: Sixty patients (n = 30 for each group) were analyzed. The cleansing efficacy tended to be higher in the 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate group as assessed by the mean total Ottawa scale score (50 g NaP 6.70 ± 1. 42 vs 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate 6.17 ± 1.18 P = 0.072). The mean time for bowel preparation tended to be shorter in the 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate group (50 g NaP 189.9 ± 64.0 min vs 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate 161.8 ± 57.6 min, P = 0.065). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the acceptability of the preparations (50 g NaP 83.3% vs 30 g NaP plus sodium picosulfate 86.7%, P = 0.500). There were no adverse events related to bowel preparation in either of the groups. CONCLUSION: The colonoscopy preparation that utilized 30 g NaP with sodium picosulfate was comparable to that utilizing 50 g NaP. This novel bowel preparation might be useful before colonoscopy.

Chronic methadone use, poor bowel visualization and failed colonoscopy: a preliminary study.

AIM: To examine effects of chronic methadone usage on bowel visualization, preparation, and repeat colonoscopy. METHODS: In-patient colonoscopy reports from October, 2004 to May, 2009 for methadone dependent (MD) patients were retrospectively evaluated and compared to matched opioid naive controls (C). Strict criteria were applied to exclude patients with risk factors known to cause constipation or gastric dysmotility. Colonoscopy reports of all eligible patients were analyzed for degree of bowel visualization, assessment of bowel preparation (good, fair, or poor), and whether a repeat colonoscopy was required. Bowel visualization was scored on a 4 point scale based on multiple prior studies: excellent = 1, good = 2, fair = 3, or poor = 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Pearson χ(2) test were used for data analyses. Subgroup analysis included correlation between methadone dose and colonoscopy outcomes. All variables significantly differing between MD and C groups were included in both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. P values were two sided, and < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: After applying exclusionary criteria, a total of 178 MD patients and 115 C patients underwent a colonoscopy during the designated study period. A total of 67 colonoscopy reports for MD patients and 72 for C were included for data analysis. Age and gender matched controls were randomly selected from this population to serve as controls in a numerically comparable group. The average age for MD patients was 52.2 ± 9.2 years (range: 32-72 years) years compared to 54.6 ± 15.5 years (range: 20-81 years) for C (P = 0.27). Sixty nine percent of patients in MD and 65% in C group were males (P = 0.67). When evaluating colonoscopy reports for bowel visualization, MD patients had significantly greater percentage of solid stool (i.e., poor visualization) compared to C (40.3% vs 6.9%, P < 0.001). Poor bowel preparation (35.8% vs 9.7%, P < 0.001) and need for repeat colonoscopy (32.8% vs 12.5%, P = 0.004) were significantly higher in MD group compared to C, respectively. Under univariate analysis, factors significantly associated with MD group were presence of fecal particulate [odds ratio (OR), 3.89, 95% CI: 1.33-11.36, P = 0.01] and solid stool (OR, 13.5, 95% CI: 4.21-43.31, P < 0.001). Fair (OR, 3.82, 95% CI: 1.63-8.96, P = 0.002) and poor (OR, 8.10, 95% CI: 3.05-21.56, P < 0.001) assessment of bowel preparation were more likely to be associated with MD patients. Requirement for repeat colonoscopy was also significant higher in MD group (OR, 3.42, 95% CI: 1.44-8.13, P = 0.01). In the multivariate analyses, the only variable independently associated with MD group was presence of solid stool (OR, 7.77, 95% CI: 1.66-36.47, P = 0.01). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a general trend towards poorer bowel visualization with higher methadone dosage. ANOVA analysis demonstrated that mean methadone dose associated with presence of solid stool (poor visualization) was significantly higher compared to mean dosage for clean colon (excellent visualization, P = 0.02) or for those with liquid stool only (good visualization, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Methadone dependence is a risk factor for poor bowel visualization and leads to more repeat colonoscopies. More aggressive bowel preparation may be needed in MD patients.

Limpieza intestinal para colonoscopia en niños: efectividad, adherencia y efectos adversos de esquemas diferenciados por edad / Intestinal cleaning for colonoscopy in children: effectiveness, adherence and adverse effects of schemes differentiated by age

La adecuada limpieza intestinal (LI) es fundamental para lograr el máximo rendimiento diagnóstico durante una colonoscopia. Existen diversos esquemas de LI, y en pediatría aún no hay consenso respecto al más adecuado. OBJETIVO: Describir la efectividad, adherencia y efectos adversos de protocolos de LI diferenciados por edad en pacientes pediátricos sometidos a colonoscopia. PACIENTES Y MÉTODO: Estudio descriptivo que incluyó pacientes < 18 años sometidos a colonoscopia. Se aplicaron esquemas de LI diferenciados por edad: < 6 meses (supositorio de glicerina); 6 meses-3 años, 11 meses (polietilenglicol [PEG] 3.350 sin electrolitos); 4 años-9 años, 11 meses (PEG 3.350 sin electrolitos + bisacodilo); 10 años-18 años (PEG 3.350 con electrolitos). Se registraron datos demográficos, clínicos, adherencia y efectos adversos. La efectividad fue determinada durante colonoscopia de acuerdo con la escala previamente validada (Boston modificada). RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 159 pacientes, de los cuales 87 fueron varones (55%), mediana de edad de 4 años (rango un mes-17 años). Se logró LI exitosa en el 78% de los pacientes. La mayor efectividad se alcanzó en < 6 meses (96%) y 10-18 años (91%). El grupo de 4 años-9 años, 11 meses, que evidenció menor efectividad (69%) tuvo mayor proporción de estreñimiento previo (29%). Se obtuvo buena adherencia en el 87% de los pacientes. Se observaron efectos adversos en un tercio de los pacientes (especialmente en el grupo 10-18 años), que fueron leves y no determinaron la suspensión del medicamento. CONCLUSIONES: Con los esquemas de preparación utilizados se lograron resultados satisfactorios, obteniendo LI exitosa en 4 de cada 5 pacientes. Los resultados difirieron entre grupos, lo que podría deberse, al menos en parte, al protocolo utilizado y al hábito intestinal previo.

Adequate intestinal cleanliness is crucial to achieve optimal colonoscopy performance. Several bowel preparation (BP) schemes have been proposed, but there is still no consensus as regards which is the most suitable in paediatric patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe the effectiveness, adherence, and adverse effects of BP protocols differentiated by age group in paediatric patients subjected to colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Prospective, study that included patients < 18 years subjected to colonoscopy. BP protocols differentiated by age group were indicated as follows: < 6 m (glycerine suppository); 6 m-3y 11 m (poly-ethylene-glycol (PEG 3350 without electrolytes); 4y-9y 11 m (PEG 3350 without electrolytes + bisacodyl); 10 y-18 y (PEG 3350 with electrolytes). Demographic, clinical information, adherence and adverse effects were registered. Effectiveness was determined using a validated scale (Boston modified) during colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were included, of which 87 (55%) were males, and with a median age of 4 years (range 1 m-17 years). Seventy eight percent of patients achieved successful BP. The higher effectiveness was observed in the groups of < 6 m (96%) and 10-18 y (91%). Constipation was significantly more frequent (29%) in the 4 yo-9 yo 11 m in which lower effectiveness was observed (69%). Good adherence was observed in 87% of patients. Adverse effects were observed in a third of patients, although they were mild and did not lead to the suspension of the BP. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory results were achieved with the BP schemes used, with a successful BP being obtained in 4 out of 5 patients. Results were different between groups, which is probably related to previous bowel transit and indicated medication.