Phosphate tablets or polyethylene glycol for preparation to colonoscopy? A multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is a crucial step in colonoscopy procedure and has been identified as the cornerstone of a quality colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel cleansing still had up to 10 % unprepared colon. AIM: We herein compare efficacy, acceptability, tolerance and safety of sodium phosphate (NaP) tablets and split-dose PEG for bowel cleansing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective non-inferiority randomized trial was performed and registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01840553). Patients were randomized to either 32 NaP tablets or 4 L of PEG. Blind readers assessed the efficacy of colon cleansing using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). RESULTS: A total of 461 patients were randomized in groups (NaP group: n = 231; PEG group: n = 230). Median age was 54 and 52 in NaP group and PEG group, respectively (p < 0.01). Patients experienced an overall compliance to the treatment in 99.6 and 94.1 % in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean time of withdrawal was 15.1 ± 8.9 and 15.4 ± 9.5 min in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.95). The good quality of bowel preparation, defined as BBPS score ≥7, was obtained in 86.4 and 89.0 % of cases in the NaP group and in the PEG group, respectively (p = 0.42). In all segment (right colon, transverse colon and left colon and rectum), the NaP group was non-inferior to the PEG group. Bowel prep regimen was more frequently considered as "easy" by patients from the NaP group (54.8 % of patients) than patients from the PEG group (29.0 % of patients; p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were reported. No statistical differences were found between the NaP group and the PEG group concerning the incidence of an adverse event (338 vs. 322, respectively). CONCLUSION: While NaP tablets appeared as efficient as PEG in terms of colon cleansing prior to a colonoscopy, they significantly improved the overall compliance and eased product administration. At an era where bowel cleansing appears to be the cornerstone of a quality colonoscopy, NaP tablets in patients without contraindication might be considered as an option.

Probiotics plus vitamin D in irritable bowel syndrome: a prospective multicentric non-interventional study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) experience recurrent symptoms and anxiety disorders that significantly impact their quality of life (QoL). The aim of the study was to assess in daily practice the benefit of the combination of three probiotic strains (Lactobacillus plantarum CETC 7484 and CETC 7485; Pediococcus acidilactici CECT 7483) plus vitamin D in patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D) or IBS with mixed bowel movements (IBS-M). METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, non-interventional study in adult patients with IBS-D or IBS-M (Rome IV criteria) followed by private-practice gastroenterologists. Patients received daily one sachet of a combination of probiotics (3×109 CFU) and vitamin D (10 µg) for 42 days. The primary endpoint was the responder rate at D42 (≥50% and/or ≥100-point decrease of IBS-Severity Scoring System; IBS-SSS). Gut-related anxiety was measured with the Visceral Sensitivity Index (VSI). RESULTS: The full analysis set population included 246 patients (mean age, 51.2±15.4 years; women, 73.2%; IBS-D, 56.1%; IBS-M, 43.9%). At D42, among the 89 patients with evaluable data, the responder rate was 62.9% with a mean decrease of IBS-SSS of 146.6±125.9 (P<0.0001). Changes of IBS-SSS were significantly correlated with changes of IBS-QoL (r=-0.78; P<0.0001), HAD-anxiety (r=0.46; P<0.0001), HAD-depression (r=0.61; P<0.001) and VSI (r=0.74; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These real-life results are in line with a previous randomized clinical trial demonstrating the benefits of this combination in IBS-D and IBS-M. Symptom relief was associated with improvement of IBS-QoL, anxiety, depression and specifically gut-related anxiety.

Gastric emptying evaluation by ultrasound prior colonoscopy: an easy tool following bowel preparation.

AIM: To investigate the gastric emptying after bowel preparation to allow general anaesthesia. METHODS: A prospective, non-comparative, and non-randomized trial was performed and registered on Eudra CT database (2011-002953-80) and on www.trial.gov (NCT01398098). All patients had a validated indication for colonoscopy and a preparation using sodium phosphate (NaP) tablets. The day of the procedure, patients took 4 tablets with 250 mL of water every 15 min, three times. The gastric volume was estimated every 15 min from computed antral surfaces and weight according to the formula of Perlas et al (Anesthesiology, 2009). Colonoscopy was performed within the 6 h following the last intake. RESULTS: Thirty patients were prospectively included in the study from November 2011 to May 2012. The maximum volume of the antrum was 212 mL, achieved 15 min after the last intake. 24%, 67% and 92% of subjects had an antral volume below 20 mL at 60, 120 and 150 min, respectively. 81% of patients had a Boston score equal to 2 or 3 in each colonic segment. No adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were reported. CONCLUSION: Gastric volume evaluation appeared to be a simple and reliable method for the assessment of gastric emptying. Data allow considering the NaP tablets bowel preparation in the morning of the procedure and confirming that gastric emptying is achieved after two hours, allowing general anaesthesia.

Factors related to bowel cleansing failure before colonoscopy: Results of the PACOME study.

BACKGROUND: The factors associated with inadequate bowel cleansing leading to colonoscopy failure are not well known. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a multicentre, prospective, observational case-control study in order to identify these factors. METHODS: Investigators included one patient with colonoscopy failure due to inadequate bowel cleansing (failure group) and the following patient with complete colonoscopy (success group). Data related to demographics, medical history, and preparation were collected and compared. Factors associated with bowel cleansing failure were identified by multivariate logistical regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 101 gastroenterologists included 202 patients from 1 November 2009 to 15 January 2010. There was no difference between both groups with regards to baseline characteristics. In univariate analysis, factors significantly associated with bowel cleansing failure were vomiting during preparation (p = 0.0007), incomplete intake of the preparation (p = 0.002), and constipation (p = 0.02). Type and timing of preparation were not significantly different between groups. In multivariate analysis, incomplete intake of the preparation (OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.2-17.3), constipation (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.2-14.9), and treatment with neuroleptics or antidepressants (OR 9.9 (95% CI 1.4-71.0) were independent predictors of colonoscopy failure. CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with bowel cleansing failure were incomplete intake of the preparation, constipation, and treatment with psychotropic drugs. Interventions to reduce poor colonoscopy preparations should be targeted at these at-risk patients.