A prospective audit of the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of low-volume polyethylene glycol (2 L) versus standard volume polyethylene glycol (4 L) versus magnesium citrate plus stimulant laxative as bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: High-quality video colonoscopy requires adequate preparation of the bowel to ensure both adequate procedure completion rates and polyp detection rates. We sought to examine our practice to determine which bowel preparation cleansed most effectively in our patients. AIM: A prospective audit of the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of low-volume polyethylene glycol (2-L Moviprep; Norgine Pharmaceuticals) versus standard volume polyethylene glycol (4-L KleanPrep; Norgine Pharmaceuticals) versus magnesium citrate (Citramag; Sanochemia UK Ltd.) plus stimulant laxative as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. SETTING: District General Hospital. PATIENTS: Patients attending for day case colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall cleansing grades of preparations used: patient compliance, taste, and acceptability. METHODS: A prospective audit of patient experience of taking bowel preparation and blinded colonic scoring assessment of bowel cleansing of each of the tested regimes. RESULTS: A total of 258 (female,138; 53.5%) patients were recruited, 91 in the KleanPrep group (F:45, 49.5%), 86 patients in the Moviprep group (female, 45; 52.3%), and 81 in the Senna/Citramag group (female, 44; 54.3%). Significantly more patients were unable to take the prescribed dose of KleanPrep when compared with the other 2 regimes (19.6%; P<0.0001 vs. Moviprep; P<0.0001 vs. Senna/Citramag). A total of 45.65% of patients reported KleanPrep as tasting unpleasant. This was significantly more than both Moviprep (10.47%; P=0.008) and Senna/Citramag (9.88%; P<0.0001). The overall cleansing efficacy across the 3 groups (those with grades A or B) was 73.9%, 74.5%, and 86.5% for KleanPrep, Moviprep, and Senna/Citramag, respectively. In this series Senna/Citramag proved significantly better at bowel cleansing than KleanPrep (P<0.05) and it showed a trend toward better cleansing when compared with Moviprep (P=0.08). LIMITATIONS: Nonrandomized trial. Split-dosing regime for morning and afternoon lists may have confounded results. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, low-volume PEG (Moviprep) and Senna/Citramag combination were better tolerated than large volume PEG with Senna/Citramag providing superior mucosal cleansing.

An investigation into the length of hospital stay for deaf mental health service users.

This study looked at the average length of hospital stay for inpatients in a specialist deaf mental health service over a 10-year period, in comparison to that of a general psychiatric hearing cohort. In addition, two case studies of deaf inpatients were carried out looking specifically at the prerequisite factors governing discharge. Finally, a comparison of the types of community-based services available to deaf and hearing service users was undertaken in order to establish whether there was now a similarity of provision for both groups. The conclusion reached was that deaf inpatients are likely to remain in hospital twice as long as their hearing peers, but explanations for this difference may not necessarily be solely of a clinical nature. There is some evidence to suggest that social factors (i.e., a lack of appropriate community support, rehabilitation services, and provision) may have a negative impact on length of hospital stay. It is suggested that an increase in community-based services and provision may well shorten the length of hospital stay for deaf service users in the future. It is also recommended that further research into the relative effects of clinical versus social factors is considered.

Are bowel purgatives and prokinetics useful for small-bowel capsule endoscopy? A prospective randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is limited by incomplete small-bowel transit and poor view quality in the distal bowel. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the use of bowel purgatives or prokinetics in CE. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of bowel purgatives and prokinetics in small-bowel CE. DESIGN: Prospective single-blind randomized controlled study. SETTING: Academic endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: A total of 150 patients prospectively recruited. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 preparations: "standard" (fluid restriction then nothing by mouth 12 hours before the procedure, water and simethicone at capsule ingestion [S]); "standard" + 10 mg oral metoclopramide before the procedure (M); Citramag + senna bowel-purgative regimen the evening before CE (CS); Citramag + senna + 10 mg metoclopramide before the procedure (CSM). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Gastric transit time (GTT) and small-bowel transit time (SBTT), completion rates (CR), view quality, and patient acceptability. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: positive findings, diagnostic yield. RESULTS: No significant difference was noted among groups for GTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 17.3, 24.7, and 15.1 minutes vs 16.8 minutes, respectively; P = .62, .18, and .30, respectively), SBTT (median [minutes] M, CS, and CSM vs S: 260, 241, and 201 vs 278, respectively; P = .91, .81, and .32, respectively), or CRs (85%, 85%, and 88% vs 89% for M, CS, and CSM vs S, respectively; P = .74, .74, and 1.00, respectively). There was no significant difference in view quality among groups (of 44: 38, 37, and 40 vs 37 for M, CS, and CSM, vs S, respectively; P = .18, .62, and .12, respectively). Diagnostic yield was similar among the groups. CS and CSM regimens were significantly less convenient (P < .001), and CS was significantly less comfortable (P = .001) than standard preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel purgatives and prokinetics do not improve CRs or view quality at CE, and bowel purgatives reduce patient acceptability.

Nonacid reflux episodes reaching the pharynx are important factors associated with cough.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux is implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma and chronic cough. To date most studies have focused on acid reflux measured by pH below the upper esophageal sphincter (UES). The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between cough and reflux through the UES into the pharynx. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with asthma (19) and chronic cough (18) were recruited from the respiratory clinic. Reflux was monitored using a combined multichannel intraluminal impedance and pH probe by detecting (1) bolus reflux episodes within the esophagus and in the pharynx and (2) acidic reflux episodes within the esophagus and in the pharynx. All acid suppressive therapy was stopped for at least 7 days before the study. Demonstration of cough being linked to reflux was achieved using the symptom association probability (SAP). This was calculated using a 2-minute association window between symptoms and bolus entry into the esophagus. SAP was considered positive if >95%. RESULTS: A positive SAP for cough was noted in 7/26 patients reporting symptoms on the day of monitoring. Compared with SAP-negative patients, SAP-positive patients had both a greater number [median (interquartile range), 5(2 to 8) vs. 2(0 to 4), P<0.05] and a higher proportion of reflux episodes crossing the UES into the pharynx [25%(14% to 28%) vs. 7% (2% to 14%), P<0.02]. There was no difference in the number of reflux episodes or acid exposure time in the distal esophagus between SAP-positive and SAP-negative patients. Only 1% to 2% of episodes were detected by the pharyngeal pH sensor. CONCLUSIONS: Impedance detected pharyngeal reflux episodes are important factors in symptom production in cough patients.