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.

High volume, low volume, or pills, which way should we go? a review of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of adult cancer-related deaths in the United States. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for CRC screening. Adequate bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy is essential for good visualization, which results in higher polyp detection rates and shorter procedural times. Achieving adequate preparation prior to colonoscopy is accomplished approximately 75% of the time. This review covers current recommendations and recent updates in bowel preparation for colonoscopy. RECENT FINDINGS: Split-dose bowel preparation is recommended, but recent studies show that same day, low-volume preparations are noninferior. Low-volume polyethylene glycol with electrolytes + ascorbic acid can achieve high-quality bowel preparation and 1-day, low-residue diets prior to colonoscopy, particularly prepackaged low-residue diets, can lead to better outcomes. Utilizing visual aids and artificial intelligence in the form of smartphone applications and quality prediction systems can also lead to higher rates of bowel preparation adequacy. SUMMARY: An individualized approach should be used to decide on the best preparation option for patients. Lower volume, same day preparations are available and lead to better patient tolerability and compliance, along with less stringent precolonoscopy diets. Smartphone applications and artificial intelligence will allow us to better educate and guide patients with regards to following preparation instructions.

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).

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.

Individualized small bowel preparation for computed tomography enterography: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The study aims to evaluate the feasibility of body mass index (BMI)-based individualized small bowel preparation for computed tomography enterography (CTE). METHODS: In this prospective randomized controlled study, patients undergoing CTE were randomly assigned to the individualized group or standardized group. Those in individualized group were given different volumes of mannitol solution based on BMI (1000 mL for patients with BMI < 18.5 kg/m2, 1500 mL for patients with 18.5 kg/m2 ≤ BMI < 25 kg/m2 and 2000 mL for patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2) while patients in the standardized group were all asked to consume 1500-mL mannitol solution. CTE images were reviewed by two experienced radiologists blindly. Each segment of the small bowel was assessed for small bowel image quality and disease detection rates. Patients were invited to record a diary regarding adverse events and acceptance. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups. For patients with BMI < 18.5 kg/m2, 1000-mL mannitol solution permitted a significantly lower rate of flatulence (P = 0.045) and defecating frequency (P = 0.011) as well as higher acceptance score (P = 0.015), but did not affect bowel image quality and diseases detection compared with conventional dosage. For patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, 2000-mL mannitol solution provided better overall image quality (P = 0.033) but comparable rates of adverse events and patients' acceptance compared with conventional dosage. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized bowel preparation could achieve both satisfactory image quality and patients' acceptance thus might be an acceptable alternative in CTE.

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.

Influence of additional prophylactic oral antibiotics during mechanical bowel preparation on surgical site infection in patients receiving colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic antibiotics (PAs) are standard for preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) post-colorectal surgery. This study aims to compare the effect of additional empiric oral antibiotics (OAs) alongside routine PAs to identify SSI risk factors. METHODS: A retrospective observatory analysis was conducted from January 2019 to December 2022 at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The cohort was divided into two groups: PA given 1 h before surgery and discontinued within 24 h, and OA administered empiric OAs during mechanical bowel preparation in addition to PA. RESULTS: From a total of 6736 patients, 3482 were in the PA group and 3254 in the OA group. SSI incidence showed no significant intergroup difference (p = 0.374) even after propensity score matching (p = 0.338). The multivariable analysis revealed male sex [odds ratio (OR): 2.153, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.626-2.852, and p = 0.001], open surgery (OR: 3.335, 95% CI: 2.456-4.528, and p = 0.001), dirty wound (OR: 2.171, 95% CI: 1.256-3.754, and p = 0.006), and an operation time of more than 145 min (OR: 2.110, 95% CI: 1.324-3.365, and p = 0.002) as SSI risk factors. In rectal surgery subgroup, OA demonstrated a protective effect against SSI (OR: 0.613, 95% CI: 0.408-0.922, and p = 0.019) and in laparoscopic approach (OR: 0.626, 95% CI: 0.412-0.952, and p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: OA did not affect SSI incidence in colorectal surgeries. Male sex, open surgery, dirty wounds, and longer operation time were risk factors for SSI. However, for rectal and laparoscopic surgery, OA was a protective factor for SSI.

Shortening Oral Simethicone-to-Colonoscopy Interval Increases Bowel Preparation Quality.

BACKGROUND Simethicone can improve bowel preparation quality, but the optimal timing of oral simethicone before colonoscopy has not been determined. This study aimed to explore the effect of the time interval between oral simethicone and the start of colonoscopy (S-C) on bowel preparation quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 364 patients undergoing colonoscopy at our department from August 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 were included in the training cohort, and 420 consecutive patients from December 15, 2021 to January 31, 2022 comprised the validation cohort. They were classified into short and long S-C groups according to the median S-C. Bowel preparation quality evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was compared between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the correlation between S-C and bowel preparation quality, and we explored the effect of run-way time and time of starting colonoscopy on bowel preparation quality. RESULTS In the training cohort, 182 and 182 patients were classified into the short and long S-C groups, respectively; in the validation cohort, 210 and 210 patients were classified into the 2 groups, respectively. In the 2 cohorts, the short S-C group had a significantly higher rate of adequate/excellent bowel preparation than the long S-C group. Logistic regression analyses showed that shorter S-C, shorter run-way time, and colonoscopy in the morning were all correlated with adequate/excellent bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS Bowel preparation quality may be affected by S-C, run-way time, and time of starting colonoscopy. S-C shortening should be given equal importance as run-way time shortening.

Emotion in public involvement: A conceptual review.

BACKGROUND: Experiential knowledge can aid in designing research by highlighting what an idea looks like from a patient and carer perspective. Experiential knowledge can be emotional, and this can create challenges at formal research meetings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to consider the role of emotions in public involvement. METHODS: This is a conceptual review informed by relevant literature and reflection within the author team. A structured Scopus search was conducted in November 2021 and December 2022, identifying 18 articles that presented findings from patient and public involvement (PPI) research related to 'emotion'. We complemented the search with theory-generating articles related to the role of emotion and emotional labour in human life. FINDINGS: Study findings from the structured search were tabulated to identify recurring themes; these were as follows: emotional connections to the research topic can cause stressful as well as cathartic experiences of PPI, 'emotional work' is part of PPI when people are contributing with their experiential knowledge and the emotional aspect of 'lived experience' needs to be recognised in how PPI is planned and facilitated. These points were considered in relation to theoretical works and experiences within the author team. DISCUSSION: 'Emotion work' is often required of public collaborators when they contribute to research. They are asked to contribute to research alongside researchers, with knowledge that often contains emotions or feelings. This can be both upsetting and cathartic, and the environment of the research study can make the experience worse or better. CONCLUSIONS: The emotional component of experiential knowledge can be challenging to those invited to share this knowledge. It is imperative that researchers, research institutions and health and care professionals adjust research meeting spaces to show an awareness of the emotional labour that is involved in PPI. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review was initiated after a meeting between carers and family members of residents in care homes and researchers. The review is co-written by a group of three researchers and three carers and family members. Regular online meetings were held during the draft stages to incorporate people's views and ideas. Data extracted from the review were presented to the group of public collaborators in a variety of formats (e.g., posters, slideshows, text and verbally) to facilitate shared sense-making and synthesis of the literature.

Dried lemon slices improve bowel cleansing quality of polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: adequate bowel preparation is related to the quality of colonoscopy. Dried lemon slices can increase gastrointestinal peristalsis, which has shown potential as an adjuvant of bowel preparation. We hypothesized that the combination of dried lemon slices and polyethylene glycol (PEG) could improve the efficacy of bowel preparation and be more acceptable to participants. AIM: to investigate the effectiveness of lemon slices combined with PEG for colonoscopy preparation. METHODS: a prospective, single-center, randomized, controlled trial was performed of 521 patients randomly assigned to two groups. A total of 254 patients were given lemon slices based on conventional 4-L PEG treatment for the bowel, while 267 patients received only 4-L PEG treatment. Patients' basic information, procedure-related parameters, adverse effects, and subjective feelings were collected by questionnaires. Intestinal tract cleanliness was scored according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by experienced endoscopists. Data were analyzed by the two-sample t-test or the Chi-squared test. RESULTS: the BBPS scores were significantly higher in the PEG + lemon slice group (p < 0.05). The taste acceptability, satisfaction, and willingness to repeat bowel preparation were significantly higher in the PEG+ lemon slice group (p < 0.05). However, a larger proportion of patients from the PEG+ lemon slice group (30.7 %) suffered abdominal distension compared with the PEG group (20.6 %), while the incidence of other adverse effects was comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: the addition of dried lemon slices to conventional PEG showed its superiority for bowel preparation.

1-L polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate + magnesium citrate bowel preparations for colonoscopy: effectiveness and safety.

BACKGROUND: adequate bowel preparation is crucial for the protective effect of colonoscopy. Commonly used preparation regimens like polyethylene glycol (PEG) or sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) have shown similar results in clinical trials, but low-volume PEG + ascorbic acid (1-L PEG + ASC) versus SPMC have never been compared in a real-life setting. AIM: to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG + ASC versus SPMC in a real-life setting for the overall population, for patients aged ≥ 65 years, and males versus females. METHODS: out-patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent colonoscopy for any indication were randomly assigned to the 1-L PEG + ASC or SPMC group. Using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), the primary endpoints were the bowel cleansing success of the overall colon and right colon, as well as high-quality (HQ) cleansing. Furthermore, the effectiveness and safety outcomes for age groups and males versus females were compared. RESULTS: 1-L PEG + ASC showed significantly better bowel cleansing success than SPMC. Particularly remarkable is the HQ cleansing reached with 1-L PEG + ASC compared with SPMC (55.5 % versus 25.4 % in the overall colon, and 58.7 % versus 27.2 % in the right colon). 1-L PEG + ASC was equally effective for men and women while SPMC showed significant differences between genders (men had worse bowel cleansing). Age did not affect the cleansing effectiveness. 1-L PEG + ASC versus SPMC showed significant differences in tolerance and safety; women also had significantly worse tolerance than men for both solutions, but these did not affect the quality of bowel cleansing. CONCLUSIONS: in our real-life setting, 1-L PEG + ASC offered better adequate and HQ bowel cleansing than SPMC, achieving excellent cleansing quality, regardless of gender or tolerance.

Design and validation of an artificial intelligence system to detect the quality of colon cleansing before colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients' perception of their bowel cleansing quality may guide rescue cleansing strategies before colonoscopy. The main aim of this study was to train and validate a convolutional neural network (CNN) for classifying rectal effluent during bowel preparation intake as "adequate" or "inadequate" cleansing before colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy were asked to provide images of their rectal effluent during the bowel preparation process. The images were categorized as adequate or inadequate cleansing based on a predefined 4-picture quality scale. A total of 1203 images were collected from 660 patients. The initial dataset (799 images), was split into a training set (80%) and a validation set (20%). The second dataset (404 images) was used to develop a second test of the CNN accuracy. Afterward, CNN prediction was prospectively compared with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) in 200 additional patients who provided a picture of their last rectal effluent. RESULTS: On the initial dataset, a global accuracy of 97.49%, a sensitivity of 98.17% and a specificity of 96.66% were obtained using the CNN model. On the second dataset, an accuracy of 95%, a sensitivity of 99.60% and a specificity of 87.41% were obtained. The results from the CNN model were significantly associated with those from the BBPS (P<0.001), and 77.78% of the patients with poor bowel preparation were correctly classified. CONCLUSION: The designed CNN is capable of classifying "adequate cleansing" and "inadequate cleansing" images with high accuracy.

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.

Sleep Disturbances, Bowel Movement Kinetics, and Travel Interruption With Bowel Preparation: A Bowel CLEANsing National Initiative Substudy.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated sleep disturbances, bowel movement (BM) kinetics, and travel experience with different bowel preparation regimens in a substudy of patients enrolled in a randomized multicenter Canadian clinical trial. METHODS: Patients scheduled to have a colonoscopy between 7:30 am and 10:30 am (early morning) were randomized to (i) 4-L single-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) given in the evening before, (ii) 2-L split-dose PEG (+bisacodyl 15 mg), or (iii) 4-L split-dose PEG. Patients scheduled to undergo a colonoscopy between 10:30 am and 4:30 pm (afternoon) were randomized to (iv) 2-L single-dose PEG (+bisacodyl 15 mg) in the morning, (v) 2-L split-dose PEG (+bisacodyl 15 mg), or (vi) 4-L split-dose PEG. Patients were asked to record information on BM kinetics, sleep, and travel to the endoscopy unit. Continuous and categorical variables were compared between groups using a Kruskal-Wallis test or χ 2 test, respectively. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 641 patients were included in this substudy. Patients undergoing early morning colonoscopies reported the most awakenings in the night when assigned to 4-L single-dose day-before PEG and the highest reduction in sleep hours when assigned to 4-L split-dose PEG. There were no significant between-group differences in urgent BMs, fecal incontinence episodes, or travel interruptions. Overall, 17% of those traveling for more than an hour had to stop for a BM during travel, with no significant difference between groups. DISCUSSION: Day-before and split-dose high-volume PEG regimens for colonoscopies scheduled before 10:30 am lead to the greatest sleep disturbance.

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.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.).

A novel ultra-low-volume regimen combining 1 L polyethylene glycol and linaclotide versus 2 L polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy cleansing in low-risk individuals: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The single dose of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) has shown high cleaning efficacy and tolerability in low-risk patients. However, the dosage of this regimen is still challenging for many patients. We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of a novel ultra-low-volume regimen using 1 L PEG and linaclotide (1 L PEG+L) versus a single dose of 2 L PEG in low-risk patients. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, multicenter study, low-risk adult patients scheduled for colonoscopy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to receive the 1 L PEG+L regimen or the 2 L PEG regimen. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of bowel cleansing according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rate, cecal insertion time, withdrawal time, polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate, tolerability, adverse events, and willingness to repeat bowel preparation. The full analysis set (FAS) and per-protocol set (PPS) were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: A total of 548 patients comprised the FAS, and 522 patients comprised the PPS. Noninferiority on adequate bowel cleansing of 1 L PEG+L vs 2 L PEG was established both in FAS (90.5% vs 91.6%, P = .644) and PPS (90.3% vs 92.4%, P = .390). There were no significant differences regarding the total score and each segment scores of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, cecal intubation rate, cecal insertion time, withdrawal time, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate (all, P > .05). However, patients in the 1 L PEG+L group reported less nausea (7.7% vs 17.1%, P < .01) and vomiting (4.0% vs 10.9%, P < .01) and had a higher willingness to repeat bowel preparation (95.2% vs 82.2%, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The regimen of 1 L PEG+L was not inferior to 2 L PEG on colon cleansing, with better tolerability and higher willingness to repeat the bowel preparation in a low-risk population. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100053273.).

Mandatory vs. optional split-dose bowel preparation for morning colonoscopies: a pragmatic noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND : We compared the effectiveness of optional split-dose bowel preparation (SDBP) with mandatory SDBP for morning colonoscopies in usual clinical practice. METHODS : Adult patients undergoing outpatient early morning (8:00 AM-10:30 PM) and late morning (10:30 AM-12:00 PM) colonoscopies were included. Written bowel preparation instructions were provided based on randomization: one group were instructed to take their bowel preparation (4 L polyethylene glycol solution) as a split dose (mandatory), while the comparator group was allowed the choice of SDBP or single-dose bowel preparation administered entirely on the day before (optional). The primary end point, using noninferiority hypothesis testing with a 5 % margin, was adequate bowel cleanliness measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and defined by a BBPS score ≥ 6. RESULTS : Among 770 randomized patients with complete data, there were 267 mandatory SDBP and 265 optional SDBP patients for early morning colonoscopies, and 120 mandatory SDBP and 118 optional SDBP patients for late morning colonoscopies. Optional SDBP was inferior to mandatory SDBP, with a lower proportion of adequate BBPS cleanliness for early morning colonoscopies (78.9 % vs. 89.9 %; absolute risk difference [aRD] 11.0 %, 95 %CI 5.9 % to 16.1 %), but was not statistically different for late morning colonoscopies (76.3 % vs. 83.3 %; aRD 7.1 %, 95 %CI -1.5 % to 15.5 %). CONCLUSIONS : Optional SDBP is inferior to mandatory SDBP in providing adequate bowel preparation quality for early morning colonoscopies (8:00 AM-10:30 AM), and probably inferior for late morning colonoscopies (10:30 AM-12:00 PM).

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.