One-Day versus Three-Day Low-Residue Diet and Bowel Preparation Quality before Colonoscopy: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: One-day low-residue diet (LRD) is recommended before colonoscopy, but only three single-center trials compared the 1-day versus 3-day LRD. The aim of this multicenter study was to compare the impact of a 3-day versus 1-day LRD on its ability to adequately and successfully prepare the bowel of outpatients that require a colonoscopy. The outpatients' tolerance and adherence to the LRD were also considered. METHODS: Consecutive outpatients were randomized to 1-day versus 3-day LRD at three open-access endoscopy units. The primary endpoint consisted of the proportion of patients with a satisfactory degree of bowel cleanliness (Score 2-3 on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] in each segment). Secondary endpoints were patients' tolerance and adherence to the prescribed diet evaluated by a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: 289 patients were included in the study (1-day LRD arm = 143, 3-day LRD arm = 146). BBPS ≥2 was not significantly different in the two dietary regimens in any of the three colonic segments (71% vs. 72%, p = 0.9). The percentage of patients with incomplete preparation was similar in the two arms (9% vs. 9%; p = 1.0). No significant differences were found among colonoscopy findings in terms of abnormalities (81% vs. 84%, p = 0.8). Both groups scored similarly in overall tolerance to LRD (48% vs. 49%, p = 1.0) and also in whether they would have adopted a different dietary regimen (p = 0.3). CONCLUSION: Our multicenter randomized study confirmed that optimal bowel cleansing is reached through a 1-day LRD.

Patient perspectives on repeated contrast-enhanced mammography and magnetic resonance during neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The burden perceived by the patient of repeated imaging required for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) monitoring warrants attention due to the increased use of NAC and imaging. PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the experienced burden associated with repeated contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during NAC for breast cancer from the patient perspective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Approval from the ethics committee and written informed consent were obtained. In this prospective study, CEM and MRI were performed on 38 patients with breast cancer before, during, and after NAC in a tertiary cancer center. The experienced burden was evaluated with a self-reported questionnaire addressing duration, comfort, anxiety, positioning, and intravenous contrast administration, each measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The participants were asked their preference between CEM or MRI. Statistical comparisons were performed and P<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Most participants (n = 29, 76%) preferred CEM over MRI (P = 0.0008). CEM was associated with a significantly shorter duration (P < 0.001), greater overall comfort (P < 0.01), more comfortable positioning (P = 0.01), and lower anxiety (P = 0.03). Intravenous contrast administration perception revealed no significant difference. Only 4 (10%) participants preferred MRI over CEM, due to the absence of breast compression. CONCLUSION: In the hypothetical scenario of equal diagnostic accuracy, most participants preferred CEM and compared CEM favorably to MRI in all investigated features at repeated imaging required for NAC response assessment. Our results indicate that repeated examinations with CEM is well tolerated and constitutes a patient-friendly alternative for NAC imaging monitoring in breast cancer.

Effect of dose splitting of a low-volume bowel preparation macrogol-based solution on CT colonography tagging quality.

PURPOSE: To compare examination quality and acceptability of three different low-volume bowel preparation regimens differing in scheduling of the oral administration of a Macrogol-based solution, in patients undergoing computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The secondary aim was to compare CTC quality according to anatomical and patient variables (dolichocolon, colonic diverticulosis, functional and secondary constipation). METHODS: One-hundred-eighty patients were randomized into one of three regimens where PEG was administered, respectively: in a single dose the day prior to (A), or in a fractionated dose 2 (B) and 3 days (C) before the examination. Two experienced radiologists evaluated fecal tagging (FT) density and homogeneity both qualitatively and quantitatively by assessing mean segment density (MSD) and relative standard deviation (RSD). Tolerance to the regimens and patient variables were also recorded. RESULTS: Compared to B and C, regimen A showed a lower percentage of segments with inadequate FT and a significantly higher median FT density and/or homogeneity scores as well as significantly higher MSD values in some colonic segments. No statistically significant differences were found in tolerance of the preparations. A higher number of inadequate segments were observed in patients with dolichocolon (p < 0.01) and secondary constipation (p < 0.01). Interobserver agreement was high for the assessment of both FT density (k = 0.887) and homogeneity (k = 0.852). CONCLUSION: The best examination quality was obtained when PEG was administered the day before CTC in a single session. The presence of dolichocolon and secondary constipation represent a risk factor for the presence of inadequately tagged colonic segments.

Patient-Reported Tolerance of Magnetic Resonance-Guided Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) has been incorporated into a growing number of clinical practices world-wide, however, there is limited data on patient experiences with MRgRT. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate patient tolerance of MRgRT using patient reported outcome questionnaires (PRO-Q). METHODS: Ninety patients were enrolled in this prospective observational study and treated with MRgRT (MRIdian Linac System, ViewRay Inc. Oakwood Village, OH, United States) between September 2018 and September 2019. Breath-hold-gated dose delivery with audiovisual feedback was completed as needed. Patients completed an in-house developed PRO-Q after the first and last fraction of MRgRT. RESULTS: The most commonly treated anatomic sites were the abdomen (47%) and pelvis (33%). Respiratory gating was utilized in 62% of the patients. Patients rated their experience as positive or at least tolerable with mean scores of 1.0-2.8. The most common complaint was the temperature in the room (61%) followed by paresthesias (57%). The degree of anxiety reported by 45% of the patients significantly decreased at the completion of treatment (mean score 1.54 vs. 1.36, p = 0.01). Forty-three percent of the patients reported some degree of disturbing noise which was improved considerably by use of music. All patients appreciated their active role during the treatment. CONCLUSION: This evaluation of PROs indicates that MRgRT was well-tolerated by our patients. Patients' experience may further improve with adjustment of room temperature and noise reduction.

Who Needs Sleep? An Analysis of Patient Tolerance in Awake Craniotomy.

BACKGROUND: Awake craniotomy (AC) is generally a safe and effective procedure; however, a small but not insignificant portion of cases are aborted due to patient intolerance of the awake portion of surgery. There is not yet a firm understanding of what characteristics indicate patient tolerance or failure of AC. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a single-surgeon database of patients treated by AC over a 5-year period. Charts were reviewed for demographic, clinical, and operative characteristics, including anesthetic administration during the awake portion of surgery. Statistical analysis was performed to determine which factors predicted patient tolerance or failure. RESULTS: Our study cohort comprised 120 patients with an average age of 56.0 ± 15.2 years. A majority of patients were male (55.8%). The most common surgical indication was tumor (95.8%), with gliobastoma as the most common diagnosis (43.3%). Male sex predicted surgical tolerance on univariate analysis (P = 0.015). Remifentanil administration was associated with surgical failure on univariate analysis (P = 0.068), and also predicted failure on multivariate analysis (P = 0.030). Preoperative seizure, ketamine administration, and right-sided surgery each predicted patient tolerance, but did not achieve statistical significance. Similarly, respiratory comorbidity was associated with surgical failure, but did not achieve significance. CONCLUSIONS: AC remains an effective treatment option; the majority of patients tolerate the procedure without issue. Male patients have lower rates of surgical failure, whereas remifentanil administration may increase failure rate.

Patient-reported Outcome Measurements on the Tolerance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Radiation Therapy.

Purpose Magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) requires patient positioning within the MR bore and prolonged MR imaging during delivery, both of which are new in radiation oncology. Patient tolerance of MRgRT was prospectively evaluated using patient-reported outcome questionnaires (PRO-Q). Methods Our MRgRT procedure involves daily high-resolution MR scanning, limited re-contouring, daily plan re-optimization, quality assurance (QA), and gated delivery. Patients with claustrophobia are excluded. Mean fraction duration was 45 and 60 minutes for stereotactic treatments during free-breathing and breath-hold, respectively. Patient-controlled video-feedback was used for breath-hold delivery. PRO-Qs collected in the first 150 patients treated included questions on MR-related complaints and also evaluated aspects of active participation. Results Almost one-third of patients (29%) scored at least one PRO-Q item on MR-related complaints as 'moderate' or 'very much', with noise, feeling cold, and paresthesia being the most frequently scored in this way. Considerable anxiety was reported by 5%, but no medication was required for this in any patient. Patient participation in video feedback for breath-hold delivery was appreciated by the majority of patients, all of whom completed the procedure. Only 5% of patients considered treatment duration to be unacceptably long. Conclusion Despite the lengthy MRgRT procedure, outcomes of PRO-Q indicate that it was well-tolerated by patients.

In-office laryngeal procedures (IOLP) in Canada: current safety practices and procedural care.

BACKGROUND: The advent of chip tip technology combined with advanced endoscopy has revolutionized the field of laryngology in the past decade. Procedures such as transnasal esophagoscopy, site-specific steroid injections, injection laryngoplasty and laryngeal laser treatment can now be performed in the office setting under local anaesthesia. Although In-Office Laryngeal Procedures (IOLPs) have become standard-of-care in many American and several Canadian centers, there are no guidelines regulating the practice of these procedures. The goal of this report was to evaluate the current method of IOLP delivery in Canada. METHODS: An electronic survey was dispersed to 22 practicing Canadian laryngologists to assess safety and procedural care measures undertaken when performing IOLP. The survey consisted of 37 questions divided into 6 categories; 1) Demographic data 2) Facilities 3) Staff/personnel 4) Patient screening/monitoring 5) Procedure and emergency equipment 6) Reporting of adverse events. RESULTS: Data was collected for 16/22 laryngologists (72.7% response rate). Only 1 respondent did not perform IOLP. All performed injection augmentation laryngoplasty. Most performed laryngeal biopsies, intramuscular injection and/or electromyography guided injection for the treatment of spasmodic dysphonia and glottic/subglottic steroid injections. Only 4 respondents performed in-office KTP laser. Significant variation was found in procedural processes including intra procedural monitoring, anticoagulation screening, access to emergency equipment and documentation. CONCLUSION: Our survey demonstrates that the delivery of IOLP in Canada varies considerably. The construct of IOLP practice guidelines based on the evidence with consistent documentation would promote safe, efficient and quality care for patient with voice disorders.

Bowel preparation in CT colonography: Is diet restriction necessary? A randomised trial (DIETSAN).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether diet restriction affects quality of colon cleansing and patient tolerance during reduced bowel preparation for CT colonography (CTC). METHODS: Asymptomatic and symptomatic patients were enrolled in this pragmatic, single-centre, randomised trial. All patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio, blocks of ten) to receive a reduced bowel preparation and faecal tagging with (Diet-Restriction-Group [DR]) or without (No-Diet-Restriction-Group [NDR]) dietary restriction. Five readers performed a blinded subjective image analysis, by means of 4-point Likert-scales from 0 (highest score) to 3 (worst score). Endpoints were the quality of large bowel cleansing and tolerance to the assigned bowel preparation regimen. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (URomLSDBAL1). RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were randomly allocated to treatments (48 in NDR-group, 47 in DR-group). Both groups resulted in optimal colon cleansing. The mean residual stool (0.22, 95%CI 0.00-0.44) and fluid burden (0.39, 95%CI 0.25-0.53) scores for patients in DR-group were similar to those in patients in NDR-group (0.25, 95%CI 0.03-0.47 [p = 0.82] and 0.49, 95%CI 0.30-0.67 [p = 0.38], respectively). Tolerance was significantly better in NDR-group. CONCLUSION: A reduced bowel preparation in association with faecal tagging and without any dietary restriction demonstrated optimal colon cleansing effectiveness for CTC, providing better patient compliance compared with dietary restriction. KEY POINTS: • Dietary restriction in reduced bowel preparation regimen can be avoided. • The quality of colon cleansing is not affected by dietary restriction. • The quality of faecal tagging is not affected by dietary restriction. • Avoidance of dietary restriction improves patients' tolerance for CTC.

Comparison of Intubating Conditions using Fentanyl plus Propofol Versus Fentanyl plus Midazolam during Fiberoptic Laryngoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Awake nasal or oral flexible fiberoptic intubation is the airway management technique of choice in known or anticipated difficult airway, unstable cervical fracture, limited mouth opening (as in temporomandibular joint disease), mandibular-maxillary fixation and severe facial burns. Both optimal intubating condition and patient comfort are important for fiberoptic intubation. Optimal intubating conditions provided by an ideal sedation regimen would ensure haemodynamic stability, patient comfort, attenuation of airway reflexes and amnesia. AIM: To compare the intubating conditions using fentanyl plus propofol versus fentanyl plus midazolam during fiberoptic laryngoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, comparative and randomized study was conducted on 60 patients of either gender aged between 18 and 60 years belonging to the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade-I or II scheduled for elective surgery. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups of 30 each. In group I, patients received i.v. fentanyl 1 µg/kg+ propofol 1 mg/kg to achieve an adequate level of sedation that is Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) score of 3. In group II, patients received i.v. fentanyl 1 µg/kg + midazolam 0.03 mg/kg to achieve RSS= score of 3. Haemodynamic parameters (heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure), SpO2, EtCO2, total comfort scale values and patient's tolerance were assessed during preoxygenation, fiberscope insertion and endotracheal intubation. RESULTS: Fentanyl plus midazolam group showed better patient comfort and maintenance of oxygen saturation than fentanyl plus propofol group during fiberoptic intubation. CONCLUSION: Both fentanyl plus midazolam and fentanyl plus propofol regimes are suitable for fiberoptic intubation. Fentanyl plus midazolam appeared to offer better tolerance, preservation of an airway and spontaneous ventilation, while maintaining haemodynamic stability.

Comparison of tolerance and cost-effectiveness of two nasal anesthesia techniques for transnasal flexible laryngoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: (1) Compare tolerance of aerosolized spray versus syringe administration of topical anesthesia for transnasal flexible laryngoscopy (TFL), (2) analyze cost-effectiveness of both techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, blinded, randomized trial. SETTING: Tertiary academic laryngology practice. METHODS: One hundred and eight patients underwent TFL over 3 months. Patients were randomized to receive equivalent dose 1:1 neosynephrine/4% plain lidocaine mixture via aerosolized spray ("spray") or application with 1-cc syringe ("syringe"). Patients and physicians independently rated comfort of TFL on 5-point scale (1 = not at all comfortable to 5 = very comfortable). Data were collected on patient and endoscopist experience with TFL and reasons for poor tolerance of laryngoscopy. Cost analyses of disposable spray tips and syringes were calculated. RESULTS: Both patients and physicians reported very high tolerance of TFL. Patient tolerance appears to be similar between spray- versus syringe-administered anesthesia, although study limitations preclude definitive analysis. Poor tolerance of laryngoscopy was reported in 6.5% with comparable distribution between anesthetic delivery methods. There was no impact of patient prior experience with TFL, and there was no difference between anesthetic methods for TFL performed by resident, fellow, or attending. The difference between costs of the disposable spray tip versus syringe was $1.32 per unit. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a 1-cc syringe is an effective method to provide topical nasal anesthesia for TFL and saves $1.32 per unit compared to disposable spray tips. In our practice, transition to syringe-administered nasal anesthesia is projected to save $1300 per 1000 patients, or an anticipated $1000 per year per physician, with excellent patient tolerance of TFL.

Carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients.

AIM: To compare the impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) and air insufflation on patient tolerance/safety in deeply sedated patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: Patients referred for colonoscopy were randomized to receive either CO2 or air insufflation during the procedure. Both the colonoscopist and patient were blinded to the type of gas used. During the procedure, insertion and withdrawal times, caecal intubation rates, total sedation given and capnography readings were recorded. The level of sedation and magnitude of patient discomfort during the procedure was assessed by a nurse using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-3). Patients then graded their level of discomfort and abdominal bloating using a similar VAS. Complications during and after the procedure were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were randomized with 72 in the air arm and 70 in the CO2 arm. Mean age between the two study groups were similar. Insertion time to the caecum was quicker in the CO2 group at 7.3 min vs 9.9 min with air (P = 0.0083). The average withdrawal times were not significantly different between the two groups. Caecal intubation rates were 94.4% and 100% in the air and CO2 groups respectively (P = 0.012). The level of discomfort assessed by the nurse was 0.69 (air) and 0.39 (CO2) (P = 0.0155) and by the patient 0.82 (air) and 0.46 (CO2) (P = 0.0228). The level of abdominal bloating was 0.97 (air) and 0.36 (CO2) (P = 0.001). Capnography readings trended to be higher in the CO2 group at the commencement, caecal intubation, and conclusion of the procedure, even though this was not significantly different when compared to readings obtained during air insufflation. There were no complications in both arms. CONCLUSION: CO2 insufflation during colonoscopy is more efficacious than air, allowing quicker and better cecal intubation rates. Abdominal discomfort and bloating were significantly less with CO2 insufflation.