Efficacy of linaclotide in combination with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in Chinese patients undergoing colonoscopy polypectomy: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is essential for successful colonoscopy and polypectomy procedures. However, a significant proportion of patients still exhibit suboptimal bowel preparation, ranging from 18% to 35%. The effectiveness of bowel preparation agents can be hampered by volume and taste, adversely affecting patient compliance and tolerance. Therefore, exploring strategies to minimise laxative volume and improve patient tolerance and adherence is imperative to ensure optimal bowel preparation quality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a two-arm, single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled trial designed to compare the efficacy of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with linaclotide with 4 L PEG in bowel cleansing. A total of 422 participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention group (2 L PEG combined with 580 µg linaclotide) or the control group (4 L PEG). The primary outcome measure is bowel cleansing efficacy, which is assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes include evaluating the tolerability and safety of the bowel preparation regimens, bowel diary assessments, postpolypectomy complications (such as bleeding and perforation) and the size and number of removed polyps. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine. The findings of this trial will serve as a valuable resource for clinicians and patients undergoing colonoscopy polypectomy by guiding the selection of appropriate bowel preparation regimens. Study findings will be disseminated to participants, presented at professional society meetings, and published in peer-reviewed journals. This trial was registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with registration number ChiCTR2300075410.

Improving Inpatient Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation: A Successful Quality Improvement Project.

Inadequate inpatient bowel preparation can lead to repeat procedures, prolonged hospital stays, and increased financial burden. In this quality improvement project, the authors developed an electronic medical record (EMR)-based order set with precise instructions and anticipatory guidance for inpatient bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The current study is a nonrandomized intervention study. The authors compared 2 groups: an intervention group using a newly developed, consensus-based, standardized EMR bowel preparation order set and a control group using previously existing EMR bowel preparation orders. Bowel preparation outcomes were followed over the course of 16 months. The aim was to improve inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation, as evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, procedure delays, and length of hospital stay. We additionally evaluated the groups' demographics and patient-level factors. A total of 459 inpatient colonoscopies were evaluated over a 16-month period. The intervention group consisted of 227 inpatient colonoscopies, while the control group consisted of 232. The intervention group showed superior Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score and decreased length of hospital stay. The number of adequate bowel preparations increased in the intervention group when compared to the control group from 77% to 86%. The creation of an EMR-based order set is a low-cost and sustainable action that can be easily implemented throughout a hospital system.

Strategies to Improve Colonoscopy Preparation in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy has a vital role in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), as well as in the estimation of disease severity, monitoring response to therapy, and surveillance for neoplasia. We performed a systematic review of randomised trials of various bowel preparations for colonoscopy in IBD. METHODS: We searched various electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL) for studies reporting about the use of various strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in IBD. We included only randomized clinical trials (RCTs). A network meta-analysis was done using a frequentist approach to compare the effectiveness of various bowel preparations. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. Other outcome parameters like compliance, tolerance, acceptance, and adverse effects were assessed qualitatively. RESULTS: Seven RCTs reporting about 960 patients were included. On comparison with 4 liter (L) of poliethylen glycol (PEG), oral sulfate solution (OR=1.1, 95%CI: 0.65-1.86); PEG2L/Ascorbate (OR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.65-1.48); PEG1L (OR=1, 95%CI: 0.55-1.81); PEG2L plus bisacodyl (OR=1.08, 95%CI: 0.71-1.65); PEG4L plus simethicone (OR=1, 95%CI: 0.67-1.50); PEG/ sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate (SPMC) 1.5L (OR=0.99, 95%CI: 0.55-1.78); SPMC 2L (OR=1.09, 95%CI: 0.61-1.97) had similar effectiveness. Three RCTs reported compliance, five RCTs reported tolerance, two studies reported patient acceptance and five RCTs reported data on the willingness of patients to repeat the procedure in the future. Low-volume preparations had better compliance, tolerance, acceptance, and willingness to repeat. No difference in additional outcomes like change in disease activity after colonoscopy, procedure-related outcomes after colonoscopy like cecal intubation rate, and change in electrolyte levels were found. CONCLUSION: Various bowel preparations had similar effectiveness in respect to colonoscopy preparation in IBD patients. Low-volume preparations have better compliance, tolerance, and acceptance. The systematic review was limited by a small number of included RCTs.

[Bowel preparation before colorectal surgery].

High quality bowel preparation is a necessary part of preoperative preparation for colorectal surgery and one of the keys to the success of surgery, which directly affects the quality of intraoperative procedures and postoperative recovery of patients. Conventional intestinal preparation mainly includes three aspects: preoperative dietary control, intestinal cleansing and prophylactic use of antibiotics. With the development of evidence-based medicine, the concepts and methods of bowel preparation have also changed. Long fasting is no longer advocated before surgery, and the traditional mechanical bowel preparation are also challenged. This article summarizes the application and research progress of different intestinal preparation methods before colorectal surgery, aiming to provide reference for clinical work of colorectal surgeons.

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.

Transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation versus transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation and water contrast for diagnosing Recto-Sigmoid endometriosis. A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

Transvaginal ultrasound is effective in diagnosing endometriosis involving the rectosigmoid bowel. Some authors suggest enhanced detection of rectosigmoid involvement with bowel preparation. Conversely, conflicting views argue that bowel preparation may not improve diagnostic precision, yielding similar results to rectal water contrast. No existing meta-analysis compares these approaches. Our study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of transvaginal ultrasound with bowel preparation, with and without rectal water contrast. Studies published between 2000 and 2023 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science. From 561 citations, we selected nine studies to include in this meta-analysis. The study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2). The mean prevalence of endometriosis rectosigmoid was 43.6% (range 17,56-76,66%) in the group with bowel preparation and 64,80% (50,0-83,60%) for the group with bowel preparation and rectal water contrast. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 93% and 94% for bowel preparation and 92% and 95% and for bowel preparation with water contrast. We conclude that, there was no significant difference between performing transvaginal ultrasound with intestinal preparation with and without water contrast. In clinical practice, the absence of a significant difference between these methods should be taken into account when making recommendations.

Efficacy of Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Powder Combined With Linaclotide for Colon Cleansing in Patients With Chronic Constipation Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Multicenter, Single-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Constipation is an independent risk factor for poor bowel preparation. This study aimed to evaluate the bowel cleansing efficacy and safety of polyethylene glycol (PEG) combined with linaclotide (lin) for colonoscopy in patients with chronic constipation (CC). METHODS: This single-blinded, randomized, controlled, and multicenter study was conducted from July 2021 to December 2022 at 7 hospitals. Patients with CC who underwent colonoscopies were enrolled and randomly assigned to 4 groups with split-PEG regimens: 4L-PEG group, 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group, 3L-PEG+1d-Lin group, and 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group. The primary outcome was rates of adequate bowel preparation, defined as a total BBPS score ≥6 and a score ≥2 for each segment. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, sleep quality, willingness to repeat the colonoscopy, adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate. RESULTS: Five hundred two patients were enrolled. The rates of adequate bowel preparation (80.0% vs 60.3%, P < 0.001; 84.4% vs 60.3%, P < 0.001) and the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores (6.90 ± 1.28 vs 6.00 ± 1.61, P < 0.001; 7.03 ± 1.24 vs 6.00 ± 1.61, P < 0.01) in the 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group and the 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group were superior to that in the 4L-PEG group. Compared with the 4L-PEG group, the 4L-PEG+1d-Lin group (66.7% vs 81.7%, P = 0.008) and the 3L-PEG+3d-Lin group (75.0% vs 81.7%, P = 0.224) had a lower percentage of mild adverse events. No statistically significant difference in willingness to repeat the colonoscopy, sleep quality, polyp detection rate, or adenoma detection rate was observed among groups. DISCUSSION: PEG combined with linaclotide might be an effective method for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in patients with CC.

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.

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively explore the risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation (IBP). METHODS: We searched the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases up to August 24, 2023, to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined risk factors for IBP. A random effects model was used to pool the adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 125 studies (91 observational studies, 34 RCTs) were included. Meta-analyses of observational studies revealed that three preparation-related factors, namely, characteristics of last stool (solid or brown liquid), incomplete preparation intake, and incorrect diet restriction, were strong predictors of IBP. The other factors were moderately correlated with IBP incidence, including demographic variables (age, body mass index, male sex, Medicaid insurance, and current smoking), comorbidities (diabetes, liver cirrhosis, psychiatric disease, Parkinson's disease, previous IBP, poor mobility, inpatient, and Bristol stool form 1/2), medications (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, antidepressants, narcotics, antipsychotics, and calcium channel blockers), and preparation-related factors (preparation-to-colonoscopy interval not within 3 to 5/6 h, nonsplit preparation, and preparation instructions not followed). No colonoscopy indications were found to be related to IBP. Meta-analyses of RCTs showed that education, constipation, stroke/dementia, and discomfort during preparation were also moderately associated with IBP. Most of the other findings were consistent with the pooled results of observational studies. However, primarily due to imprecision and inconsistency, the certainty of evidence for most factors was very low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: We summarized five categories of risk factors for IBP. Compared to demographic variables, comorbidities, medications, and colonoscopy indications, preparation-related elements were more strongly associated with IBP. These findings may help clinicians identify high-risk individuals and provide guidance for IBP prevention.

Influence of additional prophylactic oral antibiotics during mechanical bowel preparation on surgical site infection in patients receiving colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic antibiotics (PAs) are standard for preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) post-colorectal surgery. This study aims to compare the effect of additional empiric oral antibiotics (OAs) alongside routine PAs to identify SSI risk factors. METHODS: A retrospective observatory analysis was conducted from January 2019 to December 2022 at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The cohort was divided into two groups: PA given 1 h before surgery and discontinued within 24 h, and OA administered empiric OAs during mechanical bowel preparation in addition to PA. RESULTS: From a total of 6736 patients, 3482 were in the PA group and 3254 in the OA group. SSI incidence showed no significant intergroup difference (p = 0.374) even after propensity score matching (p = 0.338). The multivariable analysis revealed male sex [odds ratio (OR): 2.153, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.626-2.852, and p = 0.001], open surgery (OR: 3.335, 95% CI: 2.456-4.528, and p = 0.001), dirty wound (OR: 2.171, 95% CI: 1.256-3.754, and p = 0.006), and an operation time of more than 145 min (OR: 2.110, 95% CI: 1.324-3.365, and p = 0.002) as SSI risk factors. In rectal surgery subgroup, OA demonstrated a protective effect against SSI (OR: 0.613, 95% CI: 0.408-0.922, and p = 0.019) and in laparoscopic approach (OR: 0.626, 95% CI: 0.412-0.952, and p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: OA did not affect SSI incidence in colorectal surgeries. Male sex, open surgery, dirty wounds, and longer operation time were risk factors for SSI. However, for rectal and laparoscopic surgery, OA was a protective factor for SSI.

The Machine Learning Model for Predicting Inadequate Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy: A Multicenter Prospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy is a critical diagnostic tool for colorectal diseases; however, its effectiveness depends on adequate bowel preparation (BP). This study aimed to develop a machine learning predictive model based on Chinese adults for inadequate BP. METHODS: A multicenter prospective study was conducted on adult outpatients undergoing colonoscopy from January 2021 to May 2023. Data on patient characteristics, comorbidities, medication use, and BP quality were collected. Logistic regression and 4 machine learning models (support vector machines, decision trees, extreme gradient boosting, and bidirectional projection network) were used to identify risk factors and predict inadequate BP. RESULTS: Of 3,217 patients, 21.14% had inadequate BP. The decision trees model demonstrated the best predictive capacity with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 in the validation cohort. The risk factors at the nodes included body mass index, education grade, use of simethicone, diabetes, age, history of inadequate BP, and longer interval. DISCUSSION: The decision trees model we created and the identified risk factors can be used to identify patients at higher risk of inadequate BP before colonoscopy, for whom more polyethylene glycol or auxiliary medication should be used.

Morbidity After Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics Prior to Rectal Resection: The MOBILE2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Surgical site infections (SSIs)-especially anastomotic dehiscence-are major contributors to morbidity and mortality after rectal resection. The role of mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation (MOABP) in preventing complications of rectal resection is currently disputed. Objective: To assess whether MOABP reduces overall complications and SSIs after elective rectal resection compared with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus placebo. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 university hospitals in Finland between March 18, 2020, and October 10, 2022. Patients aged 18 years and older undergoing elective resection with primary anastomosis of a rectal tumor 15 cm or less from the anal verge on magnetic resonance imaging were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes were analyzed using a modified intention-to-treat principle, which included all patients who were randomly allocated to and underwent elective rectal resection with an anastomosis. Interventions: Patients were stratified according to tumor distance from the anal verge and neoadjuvant treatment given and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive MOABP with an oral regimen of neomycin and metronidazole (n = 277) or MBP plus matching placebo tablets (n = 288). All study medications were taken the day before surgery, and all patients received intravenous antibiotics approximately 30 minutes before surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall cumulative postoperative complications measured using the Comprehensive Complication Index. Key secondary outcomes were SSI and anastomotic dehiscence within 30 days after surgery. Results: In all, 565 patients were included in the analysis, with 288 in the MBP plus placebo group (median [IQR] age, 69 [62-74] years; 190 males [66.0%]) and 277 in the MOABP group (median [IQR] age, 70 [62-75] years; 158 males [57.0%]). Patients in the MOABP group experienced fewer overall postoperative complications (median [IQR] Comprehensive Complication Index, 0 [0-8.66] vs 8.66 [0-20.92]; Wilcoxon effect size, 0.146; P < .001), fewer SSIs (23 patients [8.3%] vs 48 patients [16.7%]; odds ratio, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.27-0.77]), and fewer anastomotic dehiscences (16 patients [5.8%] vs 39 patients [13.5%]; odds ratio, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.21-0.72]) compared with patients in the MBP plus placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that MOABP reduced overall postoperative complications as well as rates of SSIs and anastomotic dehiscences in patients undergoing elective rectal resection compared with MBP plus placebo. Based on these findings, MOABP should be considered as standard treatment in patients undergoing elective rectal resection. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04281667.

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.

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.

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.

Design and validation of an artificial intelligence system to detect the quality of colon cleansing before colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients' perception of their bowel cleansing quality may guide rescue cleansing strategies before colonoscopy. The main aim of this study was to train and validate a convolutional neural network (CNN) for classifying rectal effluent during bowel preparation intake as "adequate" or "inadequate" cleansing before colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy were asked to provide images of their rectal effluent during the bowel preparation process. The images were categorized as adequate or inadequate cleansing based on a predefined 4-picture quality scale. A total of 1203 images were collected from 660 patients. The initial dataset (799 images), was split into a training set (80%) and a validation set (20%). The second dataset (404 images) was used to develop a second test of the CNN accuracy. Afterward, CNN prediction was prospectively compared with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) in 200 additional patients who provided a picture of their last rectal effluent. RESULTS: On the initial dataset, a global accuracy of 97.49%, a sensitivity of 98.17% and a specificity of 96.66% were obtained using the CNN model. On the second dataset, an accuracy of 95%, a sensitivity of 99.60% and a specificity of 87.41% were obtained. The results from the CNN model were significantly associated with those from the BBPS (P<0.001), and 77.78% of the patients with poor bowel preparation were correctly classified. CONCLUSION: The designed CNN is capable of classifying "adequate cleansing" and "inadequate cleansing" images with high accuracy.

Evaluation of bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy including a novel low volume regimen (Plenvu): CLEANSE study.

BACKGROUND: Poor bowel preparation is the leading cause of failed colonoscopies and increases costs significantly. Several, split preparation, 2 day regimens are available and recently, Plenvu, a low-volume preparation which can be given on 1 day has been introduced. AIMS: Assess efficacy and tolerability of commonly used purgative regimens including Plenvu. METHOD: In this service evaluation, patients undergoing screening colonoscopy at St Mark's Hospital, London (February 2020-December 2021) were provided Plenvu (1 or 2 days), Moviprep (2 days) or Senna & Citramag (2 days).Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, fluid volumes and procedure times were recorded. A patient experience questionnaire evaluated taste, volume acceptability, completion and side effects. RESULTS: 563 patients were invited to participate and 553 included: 218 Moviprep 2 days, 108 Senna & Citramag 2 days, 152 Plenvu 2 days and 75 Plenvu 1 day.BBPS scores were higher with Plenvu 1 and 2 days vs Senna & Citramag (p=0.003 and 0.002, respectively) and vs Moviprep (p=0.003 and 0.001, respectively). No other significant pairwise BBPS differences and no difference in preparation adequacy was seen between the groups.Patients rated taste as most pleasant with Senna & Citramag and this achieved significance versus Plenvu 1 day and 2 days (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively) and versus Moviprep (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: BBPS score was higher for 1 day and 2 days Plenvu versus both Senna & Citramag and Moviprep. Taste was not highly rated for Plenvu but it appears to offer effective cleansing even when given as a same day preparation.