Impact of Bowel Preparation Quality on Colonoscopy Findings and Colorectal Cancer Deaths in a Nation-Wide Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

INTRODUCTION: Adequate bowel preparation is paramount for a high-quality screening colonoscopy. Despite the importance of adequate bowel preparation, there is a lack of large studies that associated the degree of bowel preparation with long-term colorectal cancer outcomes in screening patients. METHODS: In a large population-based screening program database in Austria, quality of bowel preparation was estimated according to the Aronchick Scale by the endoscopist (excellent, good, fair, poor, and inadequate bowel preparation). We used logistic regression to assess the influence of bowel preparation on the detection of different polyp types and the interphysician variation in bowel preparation scoring. Time-to-event analyses were performed to investigate the association of bowel preparation with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) death. RESULTS: A total of 335,466 colonoscopies between January 2012 and follow-up until December 2022 were eligible for the analyses. As compared with excellent bowel preparation, adenoma detection was not significantly lower for good bowel preparation (odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9971-1.0329, P = 0.1023); however, adenoma detection was significantly lower in fair bowel preparation (odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.9408-0.9939, P = 0.0166). Individuals who had fair or lower bowel preparation at screening colonoscopy had significantly higher hazards for PCCRC death (hazard ratio for fair bowel preparation 2.56, 95% CI 1.67-3.94, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Fair bowel preparation on the Aronchick Scale was not only associated with a lower adenoma detection probability but also with increased risk of PCCRC death. Efforts should be made to increase bowel cleansing above fair scores.

Impact of mechanical bowel preparation on the gut microbiome of patients undergoing left-sided colorectal cancer surgery: randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications after colorectal cancer surgery have been linked to the gut microbiome. However, the impact of mechanical bowel preparation using oral preparation agents or rectal enema on postoperative infections remains poorly understood. This study aimed to compare the impact of oral preparation and rectal enema on the gut microbiome and postoperative complications. METHODS: This open-label pilot RCT was conducted at the National Cancer Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania. Patients with left-side colorectal cancer scheduled for elective resection with primary anastomosis were randomized 1 : 1 to preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with either oral preparation or rectal enema. Stool samples were collected before surgery, and on postoperative day 6 and 30 for 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis. The primary outcome was difference in ß-diversity between groups on postoperative day 6. RESULTS: Forty participants were randomized to oral preparation (20) or rectal enema (20). The two groups had similar changes in microbiome composition, and there was no difference in ß-diversity on postoperative day 6. Postoperative infections occurred in 12 patients (32%), without differences between the study groups. Patients with infections had an increased abundance of bacteria from the Actinomycetaceae family, Actinomyces genus, Sutterella uncultured species, and Enterococcus faecalis species. CONCLUSION: Mechanical bowel preparation with oral preparation or rectal enema resulted in similar dysbiosis. Patients who experienced postoperative infections exhibited distinct gut microbiome compositions on postoperative day 6, characterized by an increased abundance of bacteria from the Actinomycetaceae family, Actinomyces genus, Sutterella uncultured species, and Enterococcus faecalis species. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04013841 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

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.

Validation of artificial intelligence-based bowel preparation assessment in screening colonoscopy (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Accurate bowel preparation assessment is essential for determining colonoscopy screening intervals. Patients with suboptimal bowel preparation are at a high risk of missing >5 mm adenomas and should undergo an early repeat colonoscopy. In this study, we used artificial intelligence (AI) to evaluate bowel preparation and validated the ability of the system to accurately identify patients who are at high risk of having >5 mm adenomas missed due to inadequate bowel preparation. METHODS: This prospective, single-center, observational study was conducted at the Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, from October 8, 2021, to November 9, 2022. Eligible patients who underwent screening colonoscopy were consecutively enrolled. The AI assessed bowel preparation using the e-Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (e-BBPS) while endoscopists made evaluations using BBPS. If both BBPS and e-BBPS deemed preparation adequate, the patient immediately underwent a second colonoscopy; otherwise, the patient underwent bowel re-cleansing before the second colonoscopy. RESULTS: Among the 393 patients, 72 adenomas >5 mm in size were detected; 27 adenomas >5 mm in size were missed. In unqualified-AI patients, the >5 mm adenoma miss rate (AMR) was significantly higher than in qualified-AI patients (35.71% vs 13.19% [P = .0056]; odds ratio [OR], .2734 [95% CI, .1139-.6565]), as were the AMR (50.89% vs 20.79% [P < .001]; OR, .2532 [95% CI, .1583-.4052]) and >5 mm polyp miss rate (35.82% vs 19.48% [P = .0152]; OR, .4335 [95% CI, .2288-.8213]). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that patients classified as inadequate by AI exhibited an unacceptable >5 mm AMR, providing key evidence for implementing AI in guiding bowel re-cleansing and potentially standardizing future colonoscopy screening. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05145712.).

Patient Compliance With Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Studies show that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics (OAs) is associated with decreased rates of postoperative complications after elective colorectal surgery. However, there is a lack of literature regarding patient compliance with bowel preparation (BP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing elective colorectal surgeryfrom April 2020 to March 2022 at a tertiary care academic hospital (TCAH) and safety net hospital (SNH) were administered a BP compliance survey. Patients were compared on the basis of hospital setting and completeness of BP using student's t-tests and Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: 105 patients were included as follows: 55 from the TCAH and 50 from the SNH. The median age was 59. 45.7% were female. TCAH had a higher proportion of White patients (36.4% versus 0%), while the SNH had a higher proportion of Hispanic patients (78% versus 10.9%). Most patients at the TCAH reported English as their primary language (80% versus 28%), while most patients at the SNH spoke primarily Spanish (60% versus 7.3%). In total, 88.6% (n = 93) of patients completed the MBP- 87.3% at the TCAH and 90% at the SNH (P = 0.764). 86.7% took all three doses of OA. Compared to the SNH patients, a smaller percentage of TCAH patients took all doses of OA (78.2% versus 96%, P = 0.009). Overall, 45.7% of patients reported adverse symptoms with BP. The only patient factor associated with a complete bowel preparation was SNH setting (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, almost 90% of patients were compliant with both MBP and OA. Compliance with OA among patients at the TCAH was significantly lower compared to patients at the SNH. An SNH setting was associated with completing a BP. Individual compliance is likely impacted by both institutional practices and patient factors.

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.

Bowel preparation with linaclotide and 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid prior to colonoscopy in chronic constipated patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Information on effective bowel preparation (BP) methods for patients with constipation is limited. We recently reported the efficacy of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) combined with senna for BP; however, this regimen was insufficient in patients with constipation. We hypothesized that the addition of linaclotide, which is approved for the treatment of chronic constipation, to 1 L PEG-Asc would yield results superior to those of senna in patients with constipation. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center study that included outpatients with constipation who underwent BP prior to colonoscopy between March and December 2019 (receiving 1 L PEG-Asc with 24 mg senna) and between January and October 2020 (receiving 1 L PEG-Asc with 500 mg linaclotide). RESULTS: A total of 543 patients with constipation were included, of whom 269 received linaclotide and 274 received senna. The rate of inadequate BP was significantly lower (11% vs 20%, p < 0.01) and the adenoma detection rate was significantly higher (54% vs 45%, p = 0.04) in the linaclotide group than in the senna group. Multivariate analysis revealed that the linaclotide regimen significantly reduced the risk of inadequate BP (odds ratio = 0.36, 95% confidence interval = 0.21-0.60, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The linaclotide regimen significantly increased BP efficacy and the adenoma detection rate compared with the senna regimen without reducing tolerability and is therefore a promising new option for BP in patients with constipation.

Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

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).

Positioning exercises in improving the quality of magnetic-controlled capsule endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Good gastric preparation is indispensable for Magnetic-controlled Capsule Endoscopy (MCE) examination, but there is no consensus yet. We aim to explore the clinical application value of positioning exercises in improving the quality of MCE examination. METHODS: Clinical data of 326 patients who underwent MCE examination from January 2020 to December 2023 were collected. The included patients were divided into two groups: the conventional medication preparation group (CMP group, accepted mucosal cleansing medication only) and the positioning exercises group (PE group, accepted mucosal cleansing medication plus positioning exercises). A comparison was made between the two groups in terms of gastric cavity cleanliness score, visibility score, and detection rate of positive lesions. RESULTS: The examination time was (21.29 ± 5.82) minutes in the PE group and (30.54 ± 6.37) minutes in the CMP group, showing a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.001). The total cleanliness score and visibility score in the CMP group were 15.89 ± 2.82 and 10.93 ± 2.12, respectively. In contrast, the total cleanliness score and visibility score in the PE group were 19.52 ± 2.26 and 15.09 ± 2.31, respectively. The PE group showed significantly better cleanliness scores and visibility scores in all six anatomical regions compared to the CMP group (All P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the detection rate of positive lesions between the two groups (All P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Positioning exercises before MCE examination can improve the quality of gastric mucosal images and reduce the duration of the examination for patients.

Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The ideal bowel cleansing program still needs to be explored. The aim was to compare the bowel cleansing effect and patient tolerance of low-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with different doses of linaclotide in fractionated bowel preparation. METHODS: The subjects were randomly assigned to the 3LPEG group, 2LPEG + 2L group, or 2LPEG + L group. The primary outcome was to use the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) to evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the detection rate of adenomas and polyps, adverse reactions, tolerance, and defecation dynamics; subsets of patients with chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 753 patients were randomly assigned. In ITT analysis, the success of preparation of the 2LPEG + 2L group was better than that of the 2LPEG + L group or the 3LPEG group (92.0% vs. 82.3% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.002). Compared with the 3LPEG group, the 2LPEG + L group showed similar but non-inferior results (82.3% vs. 82.1%, P > 0.05). The 2LPEG + 2L group was similar to the 2LPEG + L group in terms of adverse reaction, tolerance, willingness to reuse, and sleep quality, but both were superior to the 3LPEG group. In a subgroup analysis of chronic constipation, the 2LPEG + 2L group had the best cleansing effect on the right colon and mid colon, while in the subgroup analysis of irritable bowel syndrome, the tolerance was better in the 2LPEG + 2L group and the 2LPEG + L group than the 3LPEG group. CONCLUSIONS: 2LPEG + 2L is a feasible bowel preparation regimen.

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.

Efficacy and safety of same-day preparation with sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate on the day of colonoscopy for bowel preparation: Multicenter, single-arm, open-label study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (SP + MC) is a well-tolerated bowel preparation agent. However, Japan currently approves only two methods of taking SP + MC: the day-before and split-dose preparation, without approval of same-day preparations. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of same-day SP + MC preparations. METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-arm, nonrandomized, open-label study. We enrolled 145 Japanese patients between June and December 2023. The patients received two sachets of SP + MC dissolved in 300 ml of water and 1200 mL or more of clear liquid on the day of colonoscopy. Bowel cleansing efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the enrolled patients, 137 underwent colonoscopy according to our protocol. Bowel preparation was adequate in 133 patients (97.1%). The mean total Boston Bowel Preparation Score was 8.3 ± 1.2. Five patients experienced AEs (3.6%): two (1.5%), abdominal pain; one (0.73%), ischemic enteritis; one (0.73%), vomiting or nausea; and one (0.73%), headache. All AEs were treated conservatively. None of the patients exhibited abnormal blood test results or clinical symptoms after receiving SP + MC. Regarding patient satisfaction, all patients were able to take SP + MC as directed; 136 (99.2%) expressed a preference for this bowel preparation for future colonoscopies. CONCLUSION: The same-day SP + MC preparation showed high bowel-cleansing efficacy and satisfaction in Japanese patients without serious AEs.

A novel strategy for improving bowel preparation based on social software-enhanced education: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The compliance and timeliness of oral laxatives have always been the key factors restricting bowel preparation (BP). We have constructed a novel enhanced-educational content and process based on social software (SS) for BP to optimize these issues. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted at 13 hospitals in China from December 2019 to December 2020. A total of 1774 enrollees received standard instructions for BP and were randomly assigned (1:1) to the SS group (SSG) that received a smartphone-based enhanced-education strategy starting 4 h before colonoscopy or the control group (CG). RESULTS: A total of 3034 consecutive outpatient colonoscopy patients were assessed for eligibility, and 1774 were enrolled and randomly assigned. Ultimately, data from 1747 (SSG vs CG: 875 vs 872) enrollees were collected. The BP adequacy rate was 92.22% (95% CI: 90.46-93.98) in the SSG vs 88.05% (95% CI: 85.91-90.18) in the CG (P = 0.005), and the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores (6.89 ± 1.15 vs 6.67 ± 1.15, P < 0.001) of those in the SSG were significantly higher than those in the CG. The average number of polyps detected in the SSG was considerably higher than that in the CG (0.84 ± 2.00 vs 0.53 ± 1.19, P = 0.037), and the average diameter of the polyps was significantly lower than that of the control group (4.0 ± 2.5 vs 4.9 ± 3.7, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This SS-enhanced education strategy can improve the BP adequacy rate and increase the average number of polyps detected, especially those of small diameter.

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.

Automatic assessment of bowel preparation by an artificial intelligence model and its clinical applicability.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Reliable bowel preparation assessment is important in colonoscopy. However, current scoring systems are limited by laborious and time-consuming tasks and interobserver variability. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model to assess bowel cleanliness and evaluate its clinical applicability. METHODS: A still image-driven AI model to assess the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was developed and validated using 2361 colonoscopy images. For evaluating real-world applicability, the model was validated using 113 10-s colonoscopy video clips and 30 full colonoscopy videos to identify "adequate (BBPS 2-3)" or "inadequate (BBPS 0-1)" preparation. The model was tested with an external dataset of 29 colonoscopy videos. The clinical applicability of the model was evaluated using 225 consecutive colonoscopies. Inter-rater variability was analyzed between the AI model and endoscopists. RESULTS: The AI model achieved an accuracy of 94.0% and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.939 with the still images. Model testing with an external dataset showed an accuracy of 95.3%, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.976, and a sensitivity of 100% for the detection of inadequate preparations. The clinical applicability study showed an overall agreement rate of 85.3% between endoscopists and the AI model, with Fleiss' kappa of 0.686. The agreement rate was lower for the right colon compared with the transverse and left colon, with Fleiss' kappa of 0.563, 0.575, and 0.789, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The AI model demonstrated accurate bowel preparation assessment and substantial agreement with endoscopists. Further refinement of the AI model is warranted for effective monitoring of qualified colonoscopy in large-scale screening programs.

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.

Performance of Computer-Aided Detection and Quality of Bowel Preparation: A Comprehensive Analysis of Colonoscopy Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool for detecting and characterizing colorectal polyps during colonoscopy, offering potential enhancements in traditional colonoscopy procedures to improve outcomes in patients with inadequate bowel preparation. AIMS: This study aimed to assess the impact of an AI tool on computer-aided detection (CADe) assistance during colonoscopy in this population. METHODS: This case-control study utilized propensity score matching (PSM) for age, sex, race, and colonoscopy indication to analyze a database of patients who underwent colonoscopy at a single tertiary referral center between 2017 and 2023. Patients were excluded if the procedure was incomplete or aborted owing to poor preparation. The patients were categorized based on the use of AI during colonoscopy. Data on patient demographics and colonoscopy performance metrics were collected. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to compare the groups. RESULTS: After PSM patients with adequately prepped colonoscopies (n = 1466), the likelihood of detecting hyperplastic polyps (OR = 2.0, 95%CI 1.7-2.5, p < 0.001), adenomas (OR = 1.47, 95%CI 1.19-1.81, p < 0.001), and sessile serrated polyps (OR = 1.90, 95%CI 1.20-3.03, p = 0.007) significantly increased with the inclusion of CADe. In inadequately prepped patients (n = 160), CADe exhibited a more pronounced impact on the polyp detection rate (OR = 4.34, 95%CI 1.6-6.16, p = 0.049) and adenomas (OR = 2.9, 95%CI 2.20-8.57, p < 0.001), with a marginal increase in withdrawal and procedure times. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the significant improvement in detecting diminutive polyps (< 5 mm) and sessile polyps using CADe, although notably, this benefit was only seen in patients with adequate bowel preparation. In conclusion, the integration of AI in colonoscopy, driven by artificial intelligence, promises to significantly enhance lesion detection and diagnosis, revolutionize the procedure's effectiveness, and improve patient outcomes.