Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of Video Capsule Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Video capsule endoscopy (CE) provides a noninvasive option to assess the small intestine, but its use with respect to endoscopic procedures and cross-sectional imaging varies widely. The aim of this consensus was to provide guidance on the appropriate use of CE in clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified studies on the use of CE in patients with Crohn's disease, celiac disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, and anemia. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The consensus includes 21 statements focused on the use of small-bowel CE and colon capsule endoscopy. CE was recommended for patients with suspected, known, or relapsed Crohn's disease when ileocolonoscopy and imaging studies were negative if it was imperative to know whether active Crohn's disease was present in the small bowel. It was not recommended in patients with chronic abdominal pain or diarrhea, in whom there was no evidence of abnormal biomarkers typically associated with Crohn's disease. CE was recommended to assess patients with celiac disease who have unexplained symptoms despite appropriate treatment, but not to make the diagnosis. In patients with overt gastrointestinal bleeding, and negative findings on esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, CE should be performed as soon as possible. CE was recommended only in selected patients with unexplained, mild, chronic iron-deficiency anemia. CE was suggested for surveillance in patients with polyposis syndromes or other small-bowel cancers, who required small-bowel studies. Colon capsule endoscopy should not be substituted routinely for colonoscopy. Patients should be made aware of the potential risks of CE including a failed procedure, capsule retention, or a missed lesion. Finally, standardized criteria for training and reporting in CE should be defined. CONCLUSIONS: CE generally should be considered a complementary test in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, Crohn's disease, or celiac disease, who have had negative or inconclusive endoscopic or imaging studies.

More Is Not Always Better: A Randomized Trial Of Low Volume Oral Laxative, Enemas, And Combination Of Both Demonstrate That Enemas Alone Are Most Efficacious For Preparation For Flexible Sigmoidoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Colon cleansing for flexible sigmoidoscopy using a standard fleet enema does not provide adequate cleansing in a significant number of patients. We tested whether the addition of a low-volume oral cleansing agent could mitigate this challenge without significantly compromising patient tolerance. HYPOTHESIS: Oral picosulfate with magnesium citrate (P/MC) would enhance the colon cleansing of patients undergoing sigmoidoscopy, as assessed by the modified Ottawa Bowel Preparation Score. METHODS: A randomized single blinded trial comparing (1) a single dose (i.e., one sachet) of oral sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (P/MC) administered the night before, (2) a single dose oral P/MC the night before plus sodium phosphate enema 1 h before leaving home, and (3) sodium phosphate enema alone 1 h before leaving home for flexible sigmoidoscopy was conducted on outpatients referred for sigmoidoscopy for symptom assessment. RESULTS: A total 120 patients were randomized to the study groups. The main indication for sigmoidoscopy was investigation of rectal bleeding (n=80). There was no significant difference in bowel cleansing quality, measured by the endoscopist blinded to preparation, between P/MC, P/MC plus enema, and enema alone as measured by the modified Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (P=0.34) or the Aronchick Scale (P=0.13). Both oral P/MC regimens were associated with higher incidence of nausea, abdominal pain, bloating, and interrupted sleep than enema alone (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of oral P/MC administered the night before did not result in better colon cleansing for sigmoidoscopy when used alone or with an enema and was associated with more side effects (NCT 01554111).

Timing and frequency of bowel activity in patients ingesting sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate and adjuvant bisacodyl for colon cleansing before colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Despite the wealth of research investigating bowel cleansing efficacy, there are very little data on the timing or frequency of bowel movements after each agent is ingested. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of each component of a three-day combined sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (PSLX) and bisacodyl regimen on the timing and frequency of bowel activity in patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: Outpatients booked for colonoscopy were asked to complete a diary of their bowel preparation that tracked the timing of bowel movements. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. Bowel activity was compared with baseline and correlated with colon cleansing. Subgroup analysis was performed examining the effect of timing of the procedure and split-dose regimens. RESULTS: One hundred patients undergoing colon cleansing received bisacodyl 10 mg at 17:00 three days and two days before the day of colonoscopy. In one group, both sachets of PSLX were given the night before colonoscopy, while the second group, whose colonoscopies were scheduled after 11:00, ingested one sachet the night before and the second sachet at 06:00 on the day of colonoscopy. Patients had a mean of 1.7 bowel movements per day in the seven days before starting the cleansing regimen. Both doses of bisacodyl tablets resulted in a significant increase in the mean number of bowel movements compared with baseline (3.3/day first dose; 3.8/day second dose [P=0.03 and 0.001, respectively]). Each dose of PSLX also resulted in a significant increase in bowel movement frequency compared with baseline, with means of 4.4, 6.3 and 4.5 bowel movements after each dose. The mean time to the final bowel movement following the second sachet of PSLX was 8.9 h when taken the night before, and 3.9 h when taken the morning of the procedure. Bowel preparation quality significantly correlated with bowel frequency when total bowel movements were considered and when only the effects of bisacodyl were accounted for (P<0.01 for each). DISCUSSION: These data demonstrate that the addition of bisacodyl before PSLX ingestion has a significant additive effect on bowel frequency and correlates with bowel cleansing quality. The timing of the resulting bowel movements have practical implications for sleep and travel times to endoscopy suites.

A review of current issues underlying colon cleansing before colonoscopy.

The present review examines four current issues related to the efficacy, patient tolerance and safety of the following bowel cleansing agents: oral sodium phosphate (NaP), polyethylene glycol (PEG) and magnesium citrate (Pico-Salax, Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc, Canada), an agent recently made available in Canada. MedLine and PubMed databases were systematically searched to identify studies related to the efficacy of altered PEG solutions combined with adjunct treatments; the efficacy, tolerability and safety of Pico-Salax; the association between nephrocalcinosis, and chronic renal failure and oral NaP use; and the role of diet. Although lower volume PEG solutions combined with adjuvant agents were generally associated with better patient tolerance, their efficacy was varied and interpretation of this end point is complicated by study design issues. There are very few reported studies of Pico-Salax, and as a result, there are insufficient data to draw conclusions about the efficacy of this agent. The available data suggest that Pico-Salax may be better tolerated by patients, than oral NaP and PEG solutions. There is a paucity of hemodynamic monitoring data pre- and postadministration, but the available data suggests that this small-volume osmotic agent could cause subclinical contraction of the intravascular space. Recent case reports suggest an association between nephrocalcinosis and oral NaP ingestion, but to date, these reports have been confined to a single centre. Preliminary studies suggest that this is not a widespread problem, but more studies are needed. There are only a few studies examining diet and patient tolerability, but they do suggest that diet may be liberalized with some cleansing regimens to enhance tolerability without decreasing efficacy. The present review highlights current controversies and advances in colon cleansing before colonoscopy, and also identifies areas for further study.

Combined low volume polyethylene glycol solution plus stimulant laxatives versus standard volume polyethylene glycol solution: a prospective, randomized study of colon cleansing before colonoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of polyethylene glycol solutions (PEG) for colon cleansing is often limited by the inability of patients to drink adequate portions of the 4 L solution. The aim of the present study was to determine whether a reduced volume of PEG combined with stimulant laxatives would be better tolerated and as or more effective than the standard dose. METHODS: Patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either low-volume PEG plus sennosides (120 mg oral sennosides syrup followed by 2 L PEG) or the standard volume preparation (4 L PEG). The subjects rated the tolerability of the preparations and their symptoms. Colonoscopists were blind to the colonic cleansing preparation and graded the cleansing efficacy using a validated tool (the Ottawa scale). RESULTS: The low-volume PEG plus sennosides preparation was significantly better tolerated than the standard large volume PEG (P<0.001) but was less efficacious (P=0.03). Thirty-eight per cent of patients in the large volume PEG group were unable to finish the preparation, compared with only 6% in the reduced volume group. There were no adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: Although the low-volume PEG plus sennosides preparation was better tolerated, it was not as effective as standard large-volume PEG. However, in view of the significant difference in tolerance, further research investigating possible improvements in the reduced-volume regimen seems warranted.

A prospective randomized trial comparing low-dose oral sodium phosphate plus stimulant laxatives with large volume polyethylene glycol solution for colon cleansing.

This study examined whether the combination of a single dose (45 ml) oral sodium phosphate (NaP), four bisacodyl tablets (5 mg), and one bisacodyl enema (10 mg) preparation, Fleet Prep Kit 3 (FPK #3), was better tolerated and more efficacious than 4 L polyethylene glycol solution (PEG) for colonic cleansing prior to colonoscopy. One hundred and seventy-one patients were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blinded study designed to detect a 20% or greater difference in patient tolerance and effectiveness in colonic cleansing between the two agents. The single dose of NaP and the bisacodyl tablets were administered at 1900 h and at 2100 h, respectively, the evening prior to colonoscopy and the bisacodyl enema 2 h before the procedure. PEG was consumed over 1-2 h the evening prior to colonoscopy. Most patients (84%) found the FPK #3 easy or tolerable compared to only 33% receiving PEG (p < 0.001). Over 40% could not complete the PEG. There was no detectable difference in the efficacy between the two preparations (p= 0.74). Comparison of biochemical and hemodynamic values obtained before and after colonic cleansing did not reveal any significant differences apart from hyperphosphatemia in a few patients (16%) receiving FPK #3 and minor changes in blood urea nitrogen and chloride. These findings suggest that FPK #3 is better tolerated and as safe as PEG but does not provide more efficacious cleansing of the colon.

Recognizing the clinical contraindications to the use of oral sodium phosphate for colon cleansing: a case study.

Oral sodium phosphate has been demonstrated in numerous clinical trials to be an effective and well-tolerated colonic cleansing agent. However, there exists a potential to induce shifts in intravascular volume. The phosphate load often results in hyperphosphatemia, which may precipitate hypocalcemia. A review at the authors' institution identified four patients with adverse events related to oral sodium phosphate. Three of these cases had pre-existing comorbidities that predisposed them to the adverse event, or had received doses higher than that used or recommended in previous trials. Recommendations for relative and absolute contraindications to the use of oral sodium phosphate are described.