Shortening Oral Simethicone-to-Colonoscopy Interval Increases Bowel Preparation Quality.

BACKGROUND Simethicone can improve bowel preparation quality, but the optimal timing of oral simethicone before colonoscopy has not been determined. This study aimed to explore the effect of the time interval between oral simethicone and the start of colonoscopy (S-C) on bowel preparation quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 364 patients undergoing colonoscopy at our department from August 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 were included in the training cohort, and 420 consecutive patients from December 15, 2021 to January 31, 2022 comprised the validation cohort. They were classified into short and long S-C groups according to the median S-C. Bowel preparation quality evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was compared between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the correlation between S-C and bowel preparation quality, and we explored the effect of run-way time and time of starting colonoscopy on bowel preparation quality. RESULTS In the training cohort, 182 and 182 patients were classified into the short and long S-C groups, respectively; in the validation cohort, 210 and 210 patients were classified into the 2 groups, respectively. In the 2 cohorts, the short S-C group had a significantly higher rate of adequate/excellent bowel preparation than the long S-C group. Logistic regression analyses showed that shorter S-C, shorter run-way time, and colonoscopy in the morning were all correlated with adequate/excellent bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS Bowel preparation quality may be affected by S-C, run-way time, and time of starting colonoscopy. S-C shortening should be given equal importance as run-way time shortening.

Simethicone use in drug-induced sleep endoscopy improves visibility.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of simethicone, a defoaming agent, on improving visibility during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: The study was a retrospective case-series study on patients with OSA who failed positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment. Patient parameters were recorded including age, BMI, neck and abdominal circumference, and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). Comparisons were made between DISE procedures performed with and without the administration of simethicone. Visibility during DISE was independently graded by two surgeons, and inter-rater reliability was assessed. RESULTS: Simethicone significantly improved DISE visibility (p = 0.03). "Best visibility" was achieved in 55% of cases with simethicone compared to 27% without simethicone (p = 0.02). Sub-analysis showed that only simethicone administration had a significant effect on visibility (p = 0.02). Inter-rater reliability between the grading surgeons was strong (Cohen-Kappa score 0.7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that simethicone enhances DISE visibility for OSA surgical planning. Further research should explore optimizing simethicone administration timing and the potential clinical implications for surgical outcomes and patient care.

Effect of simethicone for the management of early abdominal distension after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter retrospective propensity score matching study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether simethicone expediates the remission of abdominal distension after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: This retrospective study involved LC patients who either received perioperative simethicone treatment or not. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to minimize bias. The primary endpoint was the remission rate of abdominal distension within 24 h after LC. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify independent risk factors affecting the early remission of abdominal distension after LC. Subsequently, a prediction model was established and validated. RESULTS: A total of 1,286 patients were divided into simethicone (n = 811) and non-simethicone groups (n = 475) as 2:1 PSM. The patients receiving simethicone had better remission rates of abdominal distension at both 24 h and 48 h after LC (49.2% vs. 34.7%, 83.9% vs. 74.8%, respectively), along with shorter time to the first flatus (14.6 ± 11.1 h vs. 17.2 ± 9.1 h, P < 0.001) compared to those without. Multiple logistic regression identified gallstone (OR = 0.33, P = 0.001), cholecystic polyp (OR = 0.53, P = 0.050), preoperative abdominal distention (OR = 0.63, P = 0.002) and simethicone use (OR = 1.89, P < 0.001) as independent factors contributing to the early remission of abdominal distension following LC. The prognosis model developed for predicting remission rates of abdominal distension within 24 h after LC yielded an area under the curve of 0.643 and internal validation a value of 0.644. CONCLUSIONS: Simethicone administration significantly enhanced the early remission of post-LC abdominal distension, particularly for patients who had gallstones, cholecystic polyp, prolonged anesthesia or preoperative abdominal distention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2200064964 (24/10/2022).

Efficacy of low-dose versus high-dose simethicone with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Additional simethicone (SIM) can improve adequate bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, there is no consensus on the optimal dose of SIM. In this study, we compared the adequate bowel preparation rate with supplementation of split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-dose SIM (200 mg) versus high-dose SIM (1200 mg). METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded trial involving consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation as assessed by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. RESULTS: Four hundred subjects were randomly allocated to low-dose SIM or high-dose SIM group. Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to total bubble scale (BS) (8.49 ± 1.00 vs 8.39 ± 1.10, P = 0.07), total BBPS score (8.70 ± 0.81 vs 8.29 ± 1.18, P = 0.98), ADR (33.68% vs 31.79%, P = 0.69) or withdrawal time (13 [range, 10-16] min vs 13 [10-15] min, P = 0.96). The intubation time in low-dose SIM group was significantly shorter than that in high-dose SIM group (8 (4-16) min vs 10 [6-17] min, P = 0.04). In addition, BS scores as well as diminutive ADR in right colon were superior in the low-dose SIM group (2.68 ± 0.59 vs 2.52 ± 0.73, P = 0.03 and 54.29% vs 30.30%, P = 0.046, respectively). CONCLUSION: Addition of low-dose SIM to split-dose 2 L PEG was as effective as addition of high-dose SIM with respect to adequate bowel preparation, ADR and patient tolerance. However, low-dose SIM was superior with respect to intubation time, right colon BS scores, right colon diminutive ADR and cost savings.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019.

ESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

The benefit of adding oral simethicone in bowel preparation regimen for the detection of colon adenoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Simethicone is an anti-foaming agent commonly used during colonoscopy. Although several randomized trials have shown that oral simethicone in the bowel preparation regimen may improve bowel cleanness, whether it improves adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate remains undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine if oral simethicone in bowel preparation regimen before colonoscopy improves the ADR. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed, SDOL, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest databases through December 2017. Randomized controlled trials that compared bowel preparation regimens with simethicone versus those without it were included. Effect estimates from each study were extracted and underwent meta-analysis using appropriate models. The primary outcomes were ADR and polyp detection rate, and secondary outcomes included bowel preparation, bubble score, and withdrawal time. RESULTS: Twelve published randomized controlled studies with 6003 participants were included for meta-analysis. There was no difference in the overall ADR (pooled risk ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 0.91-1.24) and right-side ADR (risk ratio = 1.50, 95% confidence interval = 0.82-2.75) between the groups with or without simethicone. However, the addition of simethicone improved adenoma detected per patient (2.20 ± 1.36 vs 1.63 ± 0.89) according to one of the included studies. Meta-regression revealed that the baseline ADR < 25% of the included studies was associated with significant benefit of oral simethicone; the number needed to treat was 15. CONCLUSIONS: The adjunction of oral simethicone significantly improved bowel preparation quality and might benefit adenoma detection in specific settings with low baseline ADR.

Effect of supplemental simethicone for bowel preparation on adenoma detection during colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that supplemental simethicone (SIM) can improve bowel preparation based on polyethylene glycol, there is no consensus as to whether SIM can ultimately increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect of SIM on ADR during colonoscopy. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to find relevant RCTs. RCTs evaluating the effect of pre-procedure SIM on the ADR during colonoscopy were finally included, and fixed effect models were applied. RESULTS: Six trials involving 1855 patients were finally included. The present meta-analysis suggested that the ADR during colonoscopy was significantly increased by supplemental SIM (27.9% vs 23.3%, P = 0.02), with a relative risk of 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.03-1.39). Subgroup analysis suggested that supplemental SIM may be more useful to improve ADR during colonoscopy in endoscopic centers with low baseline ADR. CONCLUSIONS: Supplemental SIM for bowel preparation based on polyethylene glycol is useful to improve the ADR during colonoscopy.

Optimal Timing of Simethicone Addition for Bowel Preparation Using Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid.

BACKGROUND: Colonic bubbles obscure the colonic mucosa during colonoscopy following bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc). Simethicone is used to enhance visualization during colonoscopy. We aimed to determine the optimal timing of simethicone addition to improve bowel preparation using PEG-Asc. METHODS: This prospective, randomized study enrolled patients undergoing elective colonoscopy from April 2017 to January 2018. They were randomly assigned to one of the following three groups: PEG-Asc only (control) or simethicone addition in the morning on the day of colonoscopy (PEG-S1) or in the evening of the day prior to colonoscopy (PEG-S2). The primary outcome was the quality of colon cleansing, and the secondary outcomes were the adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR), and diminutive (≤ 5 mm) ADR. RESULTS: In total, 240 patients were randomly allocated to the three groups; six patients were withdrawn. Of the 234 patients evaluated, 78, 79, and 77 were allocated to the control, PEG-S1, and PEG-S2 groups, respectively. The bubble scores of all colonic segments were lowest in the PEG-S2 group. There was no significant difference in ADR or PDR among the three groups. However, the diminutive ADR was significantly higher in the PEG-S2 group compared to the other two groups (control 5.1% vs. PEG-S1 8.9% vs. PEG-S2 20.8%; P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Addition of simethicone to PEG-Asc at the optimal time prevents the formation of air bubbles and so improves the quality of bowel preparation, especially enhancing diminutive ADR.

Use of N-acetylcysteine plus simethicone to improve mucosal visibility during upper GI endoscopy: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Upper GI endoscopy (UGE) is essential for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases. Mucus and bubbles may decrease mucosal visibility. The use of mucolytics could improve visualization. Our aim was to determine whether premedication with simethicone or simethicone plus N-acetylcysteine is effective in improving visibility during UGE. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with 2 control groups: no intervention and water 100 mL (W); and 3 intervention groups: simethicone 200 mg (S); S + N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 500 mg (S+NAC500); and S + NAC 1000 mg (S+NAC1000). The solution was ingested 20 minutes before UGE. Gastric visibility was evaluated in 4 segments with a previously described scale. A score of less than 7 points was defined as adequate visibility (AV). Water volume was used to improve visibility, and adverse reactions were evaluated as a secondary outcome. Multiple group comparison was performed using non-parametric one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Two hundred thirty patients were included in the study, 68% female, mean age 49 years. The most common indication for UGE was epigastric pain/dyspepsia (33%). AV was more frequent in the S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 groups (65% and 67%) compared with no intervention (44%, P = .044) and water (41%, P = .022). The gastric total visibility scale (TVS) was significantly better in the S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 groups compared with water (P = .03 and P = .008). Simethicone was not different from no intervention and water. S+NAC1000 required less water volume to improve visibility. No adverse reactions from the study drugs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with S+NAC500 and S+NAC1000 improves visibility during UGE. The use of simethicone did not show improvements in gastric visibility. TVS was worse in patients using water alone. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT 01653171.).

Impact of preprocedure simethicone on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: a multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Ideal bowel preparation for colonoscopy requires complete removal of fluid and foam from the colon. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is widely used for bowel preparation, with antifoaming agents such as simethicone commonly used in combination with PEG. Data on the effect of simethicone on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) were limited. This study therefore aimed to investigate whether preprocedure simethicone could increase the ADR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial involving consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy in six centers in China. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: PEG plus simethicone or PEG alone. The primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes were quality of bowel preparation, measured by the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) and bubble scores. RESULTS: 583 patients were included. More adenomas were detected in the PEG plus simethicone group than in the PEG alone group (ADR 21.0 % vs. 14.3 %, P = 0.04; advanced ADR 9.0 % vs. 7.0 %, P = 0.38). The mean number of adenomas detected was 2.20 ±â€Š1.36 vs. 1.63 ±â€Š0.89 (P = 0.02). Patients in the PEG plus simethicone group showed better bowel cleansing efficacy: BBPS ≥ 6 in 88.3 % vs. 75.2 % (P < 0.001) and bubble scores of 1.00 ±â€Š1.26 vs. 3.98 ±â€Š2.50 (P < 0.001). Abdominal bloating was reported less frequently in the PEG plus simethicone group (7.8 % vs. 19.7 %, P < 0.001) than in the PEG alone group. CONCLUSION: Combined use of PEG and simethicone is associated with a significantly increased ADR in a Chinese population.

Simethicone improves bowel cleansing with low-volume polyethylene glycol: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: For bowel preparation, using a reduced volume of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution without influencing its effectiveness would be preferable. While simethicone shows great potential as an adjunctive agent, data on its use are limited. We aimed to clarify whether simethicone added to low-volume PEG solution improved bowel cleansing. PATIENTS AND METHODS : Consecutive adult patients registered for colonoscopy were recruited from seven medical centers in South China between 15 April and 15 July 2015 and prospectively randomized into two groups: 2 L PEG (conventional group) and 2 L PEG plus simethicone (simethicone group). The primary endpoint was the effectiveness of bowel cleansing according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary endpoints included cecal intubation time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), patient safety and compliance, and adverse events. RESULTS : We included 290 and 289 patients in the conventional and simethicone groups, respectively, for analysis. The proportion with acceptable bowel cleansing (BBPS ≥ 6) was significantly higher in the simethicone group than in the conventional group (88.2 % vs. 76.6 %; P < 0.001). The mean (SD) BBPS score was significantly lower in the conventional group (6.5 [1.8] vs. 7.3 [1.7]; P < 0.001), as was the bubble score (2.5 [0.7] vs. 2.8 [0.5]; P < 0.001). The average cecal intubation time was significantly shorter in the simethicone group (6.3 [3.1] vs. 7.5 [5.1] minutes; P < 0.001). The ADR in the right colon was higher in the simethicone group than in the conventional group (16.6 % vs. 10.3 %; P = 0.03). Safety and compliance, including the taste, smell, and dosage of PEG, were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Simethicone added to low-volume PEG solution improves bowel-cleansing efficacy, with similar safety and compliance, shorter cecal intubation time, and higher ADR.

Influence of Simethicone Added to the Rinse Water during Colonoscopies on Polyp Detection Rates: Results of an Unintended Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Simethicone is a common antifoaming agent that is added to endoscopic rinse solutions, but data regarding its effect on polyp detection rates is lacking. In this study, we report the effect of discontinuation of this practice on polyp detection rates. METHODS: Procedure data of 4,254 consecutive colonoscopies were used. Patients underwent standard bowel preparation with polyethyleneglycol (Glycoprep®). Colonoscopies were performed utilising Olympus EVIS EXERA III, CV-190 equipment, while quality data (withdraw times, polyp detection rates, quality of bowel preparation) was assessed utilising an endoscopy reporting system (Provation®). Following an educational event that highlighted that simethicone may form deposits in the channels of endoscopes, the practice to add simethicone (InfacolR, Nice Pak) to the auxiliary channel water pump was abandoned, but endoscopists were not notified about this change. After 5 days and performing 75 colonoscopies, the change of practice was identified and addition of simethicone recommenced. RESULTS: The discontinuation of simethicone use reduced the polyp detection rate from 55% (95% CI 53-56) to 45% (95% CI 34-56, 1-sided, p = 0.028); the polyp detection rate returned to the pre-intervention levels of 55% (95% CI 52-58) upon resumption of normal practice. CONCLUSION: The addition of simethicone to the auxiliary water pump during colonoscopy results in a 10% increase in polyp detection rates.

Premedication with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine in improving visibility during upper endoscopy: a double-blind randomized trial.

Background and study aim Upper endoscopy is the most common method for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal tract diseases. The aim of this study was to determine whether premedication with simethicone or N-acetylcysteine improves mucosal visualization during upper endoscopy. Patients and methods This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 297 patients scheduled for upper endoscopy who were premedicated 15 - 30 minutes before the procedure with: 100 mL of water (placebo, group A); water plus 100 mg simethicone (group B); water plus 100 mg simethicone plus 600 mg N-acetylcysteine (group C). The primary outcome measure was the quality of mucosal visualization (score: excellent, adequate or inadequate). Results The addition of simethicone (group B) or simethicone plus N-acetylcysteine to the water (group C) improved the visualization scores of endoscopies compared with water alone (group A). In particular, groups B and C produced a significantly higher percentage of endoscopies with excellent visualization for the esophagus (91.1 % and 86.7 %, respectively, vs. 71.4 % in group A; P < 0.001) and stomach (76.2 % and 74.5 % vs. 38.8 % in group A; P < 0.001). For the duodenum, the use of simethicone also showed an increase in the endoscopies with excellent visualization compared with water alone (85.1 % vs. 73.5 %; P = 0.042). There were no significant differences in scores between groups B and C or between gastric scores in patients with previous subtotal gastrectomy (B and C vs. A): 60.0 % and 42.1 % vs. 28.6 % (P = 0.14). The rate of reported lesions was higher in group B but without statistical significance. Conclusions Premedication with simethicone resulted in better mucosal visibility. Such premedication might improve diagnostic yield, and should be considered for standard practice. Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02357303).

Comparison between different colon cleansing products for screening colonoscopy. A noninferiority trial in population-based screening programs in Italy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The high volume and poor palatability of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel cleansing preparation required before a colonoscopy represent a major obstacle for patients. The aim of this study was to compare two low volume PEG-based preparations with standard 4 L PEG in individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within organized screening programs in Italy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 3660 patients with a positive FIT result were randomized to receive, in a split-dose regimen, 4 L PEG or 2 L PEG plus ascorbate (PEG-A) or 2 L PEG with citrate and simethicone plus bisacodyl (PEG-CS). The noninferiority of the low volume preparations vs. 4 L PEG was tested through the difference in proportions of adequate cleansing. RESULTS: A total of 2802 patients were included in the study. Adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 868 of 926 cases (93.7 %) in the 4 L PEG group, in 872 out of 911 cases in the PEG-A group (95.7 %, difference in proportions  + 1.9 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI]  - 0.1 to 3.9), and in 862 out of 921 cases in the PEG-CS group (93.6 %, difference in proportions  - 0.2 %, 95 %CI  - 2.4 to 2.0). Bowel cleansing was adequate in 95.5 % of cases when the preparation-to-colonoscopy interval was between 120 and 239 minutes, whereas it dropped to 83.3 % with longer intervals. Better cleansing was observed in patients with regular bowel movements (95.6 %) compared with those with diarrhea (92.4 %) or constipation (90.8 %). CONCLUSION: Low volume PEG-based preparations administered in a split-dose regimen guarantee noninferior bowel cleansing compared with 4 L PEG. Constipated patients require a personalized preparation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2012 - 003958 - 82.

Simethicone to prevent colonic bubbles during CT colonography performed with polyethylene glycol lavage and iohexol tagging: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the occurrence of numerous colonic bubbles during CT colonography (CTC) performed with polyethylene glycol cleansing and oral iohexol fecal/fluid tagging could be prevented by use of simethicone. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Adults with suspected colonic neoplasia who had been randomly assigned to control and simethicone intervention groups underwent CTC after cleansing with 4 L of polyethylene glycol, tagging with 50 mL of 350 mg I/mL oral iohexol, and without (control) or with (intervention) oral administration of 200 mg of simethicone. Colonic segments in the control and intervention groups were evaluated for amount of colonic bubbles during CTC. A 6-point grading system was used in which 0 indicated no bubbles and 5 indicated that more than three fourths of the air-distended mucosa was covered with bubbles. The primary endpoint was a per-patient colonic bubble grade, derived as an average of the segmental grades. RESULTS: Eighty adults with suspected colonic neoplasia were randomly assigned to the control (40 patients) and simethicone intervention (40 patients) groups. A total of 659 colonic segments in the control group and 689 segments in the intervention group were evaluated for amount of colonic bubbles during CTC. The per-patient colonic bubble score was significantly lower in the simethicone intervention group than in the control group. The mean score was 0.0±0.1 (SD) versus 1.2±0.8 (p<0.001; 95% CI for the mean difference, -1.4 to -1.0). In the intervention group, 673 (97.7%) segments were grade 0, and 16 (2.3%) were grade 1. In contrast, in the control group, 226 (34.3%) segments were grade 0; 173 (26.3%), grade 1; 175 (26.6%), grade 2; 45 (6.8%), grade 3; 23 (3.5%), grade 4; and 17 (2.6%), grade 5. CONCLUSION: The colonic bubbles associated with fecal/fluid tagging with iohexol can be successfully prevented by adding simethicone to the colonic preparation.

Efficacy of simethicone and N-acetylcysteine as premedication in improving visibility during upper endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Simethicone and N-acetylcysteine have been widely used in improving endoscopic visibility. However, the optimal dose, volume, and dosing time for the premedication regimen are still unclear. AIM: Our aim was to assess the efficacy of premedication in improving endoscopic visibility and determine the contributions of dose, volume, and premedication time. METHODS: A total of 1849 patients were prospectively treated in three groups: group A: 100-mg simethicone suspension in 5 mL water; group B: 100-mg simethicone suspension in 100 mL water; and group C: 100-mg simethicone suspension in 100 mL water containing 200 mg N-acetylcysteine. Mucosa visibility was assessed at seven sites of upper gastrointestinal tract. The sum of scores was considered as total mucosal visibility score (TMVS). RESULTS: The upper body of stomach had the worst visibility score for all groups. TMVS of groups B and C were significantly lower than those of group A. Group C had a significantly fewer patients requiring endoscopic flushing than groups A and B. The TMVS for groups B and C were significantly lower than for group A within 30 min of beginning premedication. Beyond 30 min of premedication, there was no significant difference in the TMVS among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication using 100 mg simethicone in 100 mL of water improves endoscopic visibility. Addition of N-acetylcysteine to simethicone in 100 mL of water reduces the need for endoscopic flushing. For patients unable to tolerate a large fluid volume, a 5-mL simethicone suspension administered more than 30 min prior to upper endoscopy is suggested.

Pre-medication to improve esophagogastroduodenoscopic visibility: a meta-analysis and systemic review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The use of pre-medication to improve visibility in gastrointestinal endoscopy has not been well addressed and remains controversial. The aim is to evaluate the effects of current pre-medication on endoscopic visualization. METHODOLOGY: We made the overall strategies to search the different databases and assessed the quality of included studies according to the included and excluded standard. 1541 patients were treated with pre-medication. RESULT: Ten prospective studies involving 1541 patients were included. There was improved visibility in patients treated with Simethicone (weighted mean difference -4.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), -4.94 to -3.67), compared to those who did not use Simethicone. In the Simethicone based regiment, administration of Pronase was noted with significantly improved visibility in the location of antrum and fundus, compared to those who did not use; however, administration of N-acetyl-L-cysteine could not lead to significantly improved visibility. Simethicone offered better visibility than N-acetyl-L-cysteine and Pronase alone. CONCLUSIONS: There is improved visibility with pre-medication using Simethicone before esophagogastroduodenoscopy. In the Simethicone based regimen, administration of Pronase or N-acetyl-Lcysteine may be of little use in improving visibility. Based on the literature review, Simethicone dissolved in the water with the acceptably lowest ratio of 0.7 can still offer the good visibility but 30 mL of water should be avoided.

Effect of alverine citrate plus simethicone in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

Colonoscopy is the standard procedure for screening, and surveillance of colorectal cancer, including the treatment for colonic lesions. Colonic spasm is an important problem from colonoscopy that affects both surgeons and patients. The spasm also might be the cause of longer cecal intubation time, difficulty of the procedure, and increased pain. Previous reports indicated that antispasmodic agents can decrease such symptoms. Therefore, we conducted this study to investigate the cecal intubation time of antispasmodic agents. A single blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted from 01/11/2020 to 31/08/2021. One hundred four patients were allocated to antispasmodic agent group and control group, in 1:1 ratio. The efficacy of median (range) cecal intubation time showed similar results of 5 (2, 14) and 5 (2, 15) minutes with no statistically significant difference. The mean scores of all domains i.e., pain, spasm, cleanliness, and difficulty were better in the antispasmodic agent group about 2.6 (1.4), 1.8 (0.8), 2.4 (0.9), and 2.0 (0.9), respectively, than control group but there were spasm and cleanliness showed statistically significant difference. Moreover, the satisfaction scores showed better efficacy in decreased spasm, decreased difficulty, and increased cleanliness than control group. Prescribing of antispasmodic drugs before colonoscopy might be the choice of treatment for the patients. The antispasmodic drugs will be beneficial to both of the patient and the doctor.

Small bowel preparations for capsule endoscopy with mannitol and simethicone: a prospective, randomized, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus concerning small bowel preparation before capsule endoscopy (CE). This study evaluated the effects of 4 regimens on small bowel cleansing and diagnostic yield. METHODS: Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups. Group A consumed a clear liquid diet after lunch on the day before CE, followed by overnight fasting. Group B took 250 mL 20% mannitol and 1 L 0.9% saline orally at 05:00 hours on the day of the procedure. In group C, the same regimen was taken at 20:00 hours on the day before and at 05:00 hours on the day of CE. In group D, in addition to the group C regimen, 20 mL oral simethicone was taken 30 minutes before CE. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were prospectively enrolled, and 7 were excluded from the final analysis because of incomplete small bowel transit. No significant difference was noted among the 4 groups for small bowel transit time. Bowel preparation in group D was significantly better than for the other regimens for overall cleansing of the proximal small bowel, and showed improved overall cleansing of the distal small bowel when compared with 10-hours overnight fasting. Pathological lesions of the proximal and distal small bowel were, respectively, achieved in 82 and 74 patients, mostly distributed in group D. CONCLUSIONS: Small bowel preparation that involves split-dose oral mannitol plus single-dose simethicone for CE can improve mucosal visualization and subsequent diagnostic yield when compared with 10-hours overnight fasting.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Simethicone for gastrointestinal endoscopic visibility.

BACKGROUND: The value of supplemental use of Simethicone in endoscopy including capsule endoscopy (CE), colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy is not addressed and is controversial. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies on the use of Simethicone for endoscopy were carried out. The effects of this preparation on the following endpoints were examined: small bowel visualization quality (SBVQ), completion rate, gastric transit time, small bowel transit time, diagnostic yield, efficacy of bowel preparation, degree of air bubbles and duration time. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies were eligible in this meta-analysis; 4 studies comparing purgative or fasting plus Simethicone with purgative or fasting alone for capsule endoscopy were identified. For patients who had supplemental Simethicone before CE, the SBVQ was significantly better ([odds ratio] OR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.74-4.65, p = 0.00), and the completion rate was comparable (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.44-1.44, p = 0.454). Also, 7 studies comparing purgative plus Simethicone with purgative alone for colonoscopy were identified. For patients who had supplemental Simethicone before colonoscopy, the efficacy of colon preparation was comparable (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 0.56-7.53, p = 0.27), but the air bubbles were significantly decreased (OR = 39.32, 95% CI: 11.38-135.86, p = 0.00). CONCLUSION: Supplemental use of Simethicone before endoscopy improves the SBVQ, especially for patients who received no purgative, but does not affect the CE completion rate. It decreases air bubbles in the colonic lumen, but does not improve bowel preparation. And its effect on diagnostic yield remains controversial.