A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of 1-L polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbic acid plus prucalopride versus 2-L polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation.

OBJECTIVES: Bowel cleansing is a major patient complaint during colonoscopy. Adding laxatives to the bowel preparation is effective in replacing a portion of bowel preparation solution and reducing its volume. Prucalopride is a serotonin receptor agonist that stimulates gastrointestinal motility and provides propulsive force for defecation. This study aimed to compare 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (Asc) plus 2 mg prucalopride (1LP/AP) and 2 L PEG with Asc (2LP/A) for colonoscopy preparation with respect to bowel-cleansing quality and side effects. METHODS: A single-center, randomized, prospective study was conducted with 260 outpatients administered either 1LP/AP or 2LP/A. The primary endpoint was bowel preparation quality, which was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and Aronchick Bowel Preparation Scale, and the secondary endpoints were patient tolerability and acceptability, assessed by a questionnaire-based survey. RESULTS: The adequate bowel preparation rates were 88.5% and 83.1% in the 2LP/A and 1LP/AP groups, respectively, and the efficacy of 1LP/AP was equivalent to the control regimen (p=.216). Other colonoscopic variables including adenoma detection rate were similar in both groups. Patient tolerability and acceptability were not significantly different, but patients in the 1LP/AP group were more willing to repeat the same regimen (p=.039). CONCLUSIONS: Bowel preparation quality with 1LP/AP was equivalent to that with 2LP/A, which did not increase the occurrence of side effects, but it reduced the volume of the solution ingested, and increased patient satisfaction.

Using Etomidate and Midazolam for Screening Colonoscopies Results in More Stable Hemodynamic Responses in Patients of All Ages.

Background/Aims: Recent studies have demonstrated that etomidate is a safe sedative drug with noninferior sedative effects. In our recent study, we revealed that etomidate/midazolam was more hemodynamically stable than propofol/midazolam in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopies. We aimed to investigate whether compared with propofol/midazolam, etomidate/midazolam causes fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events with noninferior efficacy for screening colonoscopies in patients of all ages. Methods: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind study, we prospectively enrolled 200 patients. The patients were divided into etomidate and propofol groups. The primary outcome was the occurrence of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with fluctuations in vital signs (oxygen desaturation and transient hypotension), adverse events interrupting the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes. Results: Adverse cardiopulmonary events were more common in the propofol group than the etomidate group (65.0% vs 51.0%, respectively; p=0.045). Forty-six patients (46.0%) in the propofol group and 29 (29.0%) in the etomidate group experienced fluctuations in their vital signs (p=0.013). The proportions of patients experiencing adverse events that interrupted the procedure, including myoclonus, were not significantly different between the two groups (etomidate: 20.0% vs propofol: 11.0%; p=0.079). Both groups had similar sedation-related outcomes. Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with the propofol groups, the etomidate group had a significantly lower risk of fluctuations in vital signs (odds ratio, 0.427; 95% confidence interval, 0.230 to 0.792; p=0.007). Conclusions: Compared with using propofol/midazolam, using etomidate/midazolam for screening colonoscopies results in more stable hemodynamic responses in patients of all ages; therefore, we recommend using etomidate/midazolam for colonoscopies in patients with cardiovascular risk factors.

Efficacy and safety of etomidate-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly: A prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recent studies have shown that etomidate is associated with fewer serious adverse events than propofol and has a noninferior sedative effect. We investigated whether etomidate-midazolam is associated with fewer cardiopulmonary adverse events and has noninferior efficacy compared to propofol-midazolam for screening colonoscopy in the elderly. METHODS: A prospective, single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was performed. Patients aged over 65 years who were scheduled to undergo screening colonoscopy were randomized to receive either etomidate or propofol based on midazolam. The primary outcome was all cardiopulmonary adverse events. The secondary outcomes were vital sign fluctuation (VSF), adverse events disturbing the procedure, and sedation-related outcomes. RESULTS: The incidence of cardiopulmonary adverse events was higher in the propofol group (72.6%) than in the etomidate group (54.8%) (P = .040). VSF was detected in 17 (27.4%) and 31 (50.0%) patients in the etomidate and propofol groups, respectively (P = .010). The incidence rate of adverse events disturbing the procedure was significantly higher in the etomidate group (25.8%) than in the propofol group (8.1%) (P = .008). Moreover, the incidence rate of myoclonus was significantly higher in the etomidate group (16.1%) than in the propofol group (1.6%) (P = .004). There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups with respect to sedation times and sedation-related outcomes including patients' and endoscopist's satisfaction. In the multivariate analysis, the etomidate group had significantly low odds ratio (OR) associated with VSF (OR: 0.407, confidence interval: 0.179-0.926, P = .032). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using etomidate-midazolam in patients with high ASA score or vulnerable to risk factors; propofol-midazolam may be used as a guideline in patients with low ASA score.