Determination of the optimal time for premedication with pronase, dimethylpolysiloxane, and sodium bicarbonate for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Premedication with pronase, dimethylpolysiloxane, and sodium bicarbonate improves visibility during upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy. However, the optimal time for this combination to take effect is unknown. We investigated the optimal time of pre-UGI endoscopy medication. STUDY: A randomized, investigator-blind, controlled trial. The 300 patients who were to receive premedication were randomized into 3 groups according to the following medication time before UGI endoscopy: 10 minutes (group A, n=98), 10 to 30 minutes (group B, n=97), and 30 minutes premedication (group C, n=99). Visibility scores (range, 1 to 4, with lower scores indicating better gastric mucosal visibility) were assessed for the antrum, lower body, upper body, and fundus and compared, including the sum of the scores, between the 3 groups. RESULTS: Group B had significantly lower visibility scores for the lower body, upper body, and fundus than group C (P=0.001, 0.009, and 0.002, respectively). Group A obtained significantly lower scores for the antrum and lower body than group C (P=0.007 and 0.005, respectively). The total visibility scores of groups A and B were significantly lower compared with those of group C (P=0.001, 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of pronase, dimethylpolysiloxane, and sodium bicarbonate within 30 minutes before UGI endoscopy significantly improved endoscopic visualization. However, the optimal time to achieve the best visibility was between 10 to 30 minutes before UGI endoscopy.

Low-volume morning-only polyethylene glycol with specially designed test meals versus standard-volume split-dose polyethylene glycol with standard diet for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a standard bowel preparation regimen for colonoscopy, but the large volume is burdensome to ingest and the night dose causes sleep disturbance. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a bowel preparation protocol using low-volume morning-only PEG with specially designed low-residue test meals (LV-PEG with TM) compared to a standard-volume split-dose PEG bowel preparation with a standard diet (SV-PEG with SD). METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, noninferiority study. The primary end point was bowel preparation quality according to the Ottawa scale. Tolerability, compliance, adverse events, sleep quality and polyp/adenoma detection were also assessed. RESULTS: Among 197 patients analyzed (mean age 54.6 years, 51.3% men), 97 received LV-PEG with TM and 100 received SV-PEG with SD. The Ottawa score for the total colon was 3.76 ± 2.07 in the LV-PEG with TM group and 3.67 ± 1.57 in the SV-PEG with SD group (p = 0.723; difference 0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.60 to 0.42). The compliance was high (more than 95%) in both groups (p = 0.621). PEG was easier to ingest for patients in the LV-PEG with TM group compared to the SV-PEG with SD group [visual analogue scale (VAS) for difficulty: 4.64 ± 2.46 vs. 5.97 ± 2.42, respectively; p < 0.001]. Diet instructions were also easier to comply with for patients in the LV-PEG with TM group compared to the SV-PEG with SD group (VAS for difficulty: 3.11 ± 2.25 vs. 4.00 ± 2.39, respectively; p = 0.008). Patients in the LV-PEG with TM group had a lower incidence of abdominal bloating (p = 0.012) and better sleep quality (p < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups regarding polyp and adenoma detection. CONCLUSIONS: LV-PEG with TM and SV-PEG with SD have similar efficacy with regard to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. LV-PEG with TM provided easier PEG intake and diet compliance, less abdominal bloating and better sleep quality than SV-PEG with SD.

Optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval in split-dose PEG bowel preparation determines satisfactory bowel preparation quality: an observational prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Several factors influence bowel preparation quality. Recent studies have indicated that the time interval between bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy is also important in determining bowel preparation quality. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of the preparation-to-colonoscopy (PC) interval (the interval of time between the last polyethylene glycol dose ingestion and the start of the colonoscopy) on bowel preparation quality in the split-dose method for colonoscopy. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 366 consecutive outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Split-dose bowel preparation and colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The quality of bowel preparation was assessed by using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale according to the PC interval, and other factors that might influence bowel preparation quality were analyzed. RESULTS: Colonoscopies with a PC interval of 3 to 5 hours had the best bowel preparation quality score in the whole, right, mid, and rectosigmoid colon according to the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale. In multivariate analysis, the PC interval (odds ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% CI, 1.18-2.86), the amount of PEG ingested (OR 4.34; 95% CI, 1.08-16.66), and compliance with diet instructions (OR 2.22l 95% CI, 1.33-3.70) were significant contributors to satisfactory bowel preparation. LIMITATIONS: Nonrandomized controlled, single-center trial. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal time interval between the last dose of the agent and the start of colonoscopy is one of the important factors to determine satisfactory bowel preparation quality in split-dose polyethylene glycol bowel preparation.

Efficacy of prokinetics with a split-dose of polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation for morning colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Currently, a split-dose of polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the mainstay of bowel preparation due to its tolerability, bowel-cleansing action, and safety. However, bowel preparation with PEG is suboptimal because residual fluid reduces the polyp detection rate and requires a more thorough colon inspection. The aim of our study was to demonstrate the efficacy of a sufficient dose of prokinetics on bowel cleansing together with split-dose PEG. METHODS: A prospective endoscopist-blinded study was conducted. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups: prokinetic with split-dose PEG or split-dose PEG alone. A prokinetic [100 mg itopride (Itomed)], was administered twice simultaneously with each split-dose of PEG. Bowel-cleansing efficacy was measured by endoscopists using the Ottawa scale and the segmental fluidity scale score. Each participant completed a bowel preparation survey. Mean scores from the Ottawa scale, segmental fluid scale, and rate of poor preparation were compared between both groups. RESULTS: Patients in the prokinetics with split-dose PEG group showed significantly lower total Ottawa and segmental fluid scores compared with patients in the split-dose of PEG alone group. CONCLUSION: A sufficient dose of prokinetics with a split-dose of PEG showed efficacy in bowel cleansing for morning colonoscopy, largely due to the reduction in colonic fluid.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety between oral sulfate tablet and polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy according to age.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a novel oral sulfate tablet (OST) has been introduced for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, whether elderly patients can take OST is not yet clear, as OST consists of 28 tablets. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of OST and polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation for colonoscopy according to age. METHODS: We randomly divided subjects into an OST group and a PEG group and compared Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), bubble score, patient compliance and satisfaction, and safety between the 2 groups according to age (under 65 years of age vs 65 years of age and older). RESULTS: Among the 179 participants, 61 were 65 years of age and older. The BBPS and bubble score of the OST group were better than that of the PEG group, regardless of age. The satisfaction of the OST group was better than that of the PEG group, regardless of age. The compliance was not different between the 2 groups; however, the OST group under 65 years of age had a higher rate of completing the dose within 2 hours compared with the PEG group under 65 years of age. Adverse events including abdominal distension, abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting were not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: The use of OST for bowel preparation before colonoscopy is as effective and safe as PEG, and these results were consistent in elderly people 65 years of age and older.

Multi-center study of residual gastric volume and bowel preparation after the usage of 1L and 2L polyethylene glycol in Korea.

BACKGROUND: In colonoscopy, good bowel preparation is an important factor in determining the quality of colonoscopy. However, an increase in residual gastric volume (RGV) can lead to a higher risk of aspiration pneumonia. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the factors related to an increase in RGV with the usage of 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG). METHODS: We prospectively analyzed 268 patients who underwent both gastroscopy and colonoscopy at 2 hospitals from May to October 2021. Bowel preparation was performed using 1L in 127 patients (47.4%) and 2L PEG in 141 patients (52.6%). We investigated the time taken for bowel preparation solutions, the last water intake, total water intake, and RGV, and conducted a survey on taking compliance and satisfaction. RESULTS: The level of RGV was significantly increased in the 1L PEG group when compared to the 2L PEG group (1L, 52.26 ±â€…65.33 vs 2L, 23.55 ±â€…22.99; P < .001). There was no difference between the 2 groups in the degree of bowel preparation, but there were more bubbles formed in the 1L group (1L, 1.91 ±â€…2.74 vs 2L, 1.10 ±â€…2.02; P = .007). In the case of RGV ≥ 50 mL, in multivariate analysis, the risk was higher in water intake within 5 hours and the patients who think the dose is too high (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: Therefore, since RGV is higher in 1L PEG than in 2L PEG, it is necessary to be careful not to take water for at least 5 hours before the test.

Efficacy and tolerability of split-dose PEG compared with split-dose aqueous sodium phosphate for outpatient colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for a high-quality, effective, and safe colonoscopy. The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy and tolerability of split-dose polyethylene glycol with aqueous sodium phosphate for outpatients who underwent scheduled colonoscopy. METHODS: In this prospective trial, 207 outpatients (aged between 18 and 65 years, with normal renal function, at low risk for renal damage) were randomized to receive split-dose preparation of PEG (2 L/2 L) (N = 103) or NaP (45 mL/45 mL, 12 h apart) (N = 104) without strict diet restriction the day before colonoscopy. The bowel cleansing efficacy of preparations was rated according to the Ottawa scale and the patient tolerability was assessed using a patient questionnaire. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups for the mean total score using the Ottawa bowel preparation scale (P = 0.181). Significantly greater residual colonic fluid was observed in the split-dose PEG group (1.24 ± 0.49) than in the NaP group (1.04 ± 0.53) (P = 0.007). Patient compliance, preference, and acceptance of a two preparation regimen were similar with no significant differences (P = 0.095, P = 0.280 and P = 0.408, respectively). The overall incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups; however, the split-dose PEG group tended to have fewer adverse events (52/103 [50.5%], 66/104 [63.5%], P = 0.059) and had significantly less nausea and vomiting (P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Split-dose PEG, compared with split-dose NaP, is associated with more residual colonic fluid, but produces equivalent colon cleansing efficacy and results in less nausea and vomiting, which might improve patient tolerability (clinical trial registration number NCT01229800).

Efficacy of mosapride citrate with a split dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Old age is a risk factor of suboptimal bowel preparation. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mosapride citrate with a split dose of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients (aged ≥65 years) before they underwent a colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective investigator-blinded randomized study was conducted from November 2017 to October 2018. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups, a mosapride group (mosapride citrate with a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid) or a non-mosapride group (a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid alone). Mosapride citrate 15 mg (Gastin CR) was administered once with each split-dose of the bowel preparation. The bowel preparation quality was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were finally included and analyzed in our study. The total BBPS score was significantly higher in the mosapride group than in the non-mosapride group (8.53 vs 8.24, P = .033). The BBPS scores of the right colon and mid-colon were 2.75 vs 2.61 (P = .044) and 2.89 vs 2.79 (P = .030), respectively. The rate of adequate bowel preparation (BBPS ≥ 6) was similar in both groups (98.4% vs 98.5%, P = .968), while the rate of excellent bowel preparation (BBPS = 9) was higher in the mosapride group than in the non-mosapride group (73.8% vs 61.1%, P = .029). The total incidence of adverse events during the administration of the bowel cleansing agent, particularly abdominal fullness, was lower in the mosapride group (11.9% vs 30.5%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The administration of mosapride citrate with a split-dose of PEG plus ascorbic acid in elderly patients showed an increase in bowel preparation efficacy and reduced adverse events, particularly abdominal fullness, during the administration of a bowel cleansing agent.

Does Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Plus Ascorbic Acid Induce More Mucosal Injuries than Split-Dose 4-L PEG during Bowel Preparation?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aims of this study were to compare the bowel-cleansing efficacy, patient affinity for the preparation solution, and mucosal injury between a split dose of polyethylene glycol (SD-PEG) and low-volume PEG plus ascorbic acid (LV-PEG+Asc) in outpatient scheduled colonoscopies. METHODS: Of the 319 patients, 160 were enrolled for SDPEG, and 159 for LV-PEG+Asc. The bowel-cleansing efficacy was rated according to the Ottawa bowel preparation scale. Patient affinity for the preparation solution was assessed using a questionnaire. All mucosal injuries observed during colonoscopy were biopsied and histopathologically reviewed. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in bowel cleansing between the groups. The LV-PEG+Asc group reported better patient acceptance and preference. There were no significant differences in the incidence or characteristics of the mucosal injuries between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SD-PEG, LV-PEG+Asc exhibited equivalent bowel-cleansing efficacy and resulted in improved patient acceptance and preference. There was no significant difference in mucosal injury between SD-PEG and LV-PEG+Asc. Thus, the LV-PEG+Asc preparation could be used more effectively and easily for routine colonoscopies without risking significant mucosal injury.

Endoscopic bilateral metal stent placement for advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a pilot study of a newly designed Y stent.

BACKGROUND: Although endoscopic stent placement is now generally accepted as a palliative method of treatment in unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma, exclusively endoscopic placement of bilateral metal stents has been considered very difficult and complex. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the technical and clinical efficacy of endoscopic placement of dual, newly designed stents in a Y configuration. DESIGN: Prospective, uncontrolled, single center. SETTING: Tertiary referral university hospital. PATIENTS: Ten patients with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma of Bismuth type II or higher. INTERVENTIONS: For bilateral metal stent placement, a biliary Y stent with central wide-open mesh was used exclusively at first. A second stent was placed into the contralateral hepatic duct through the central open mesh of the Y stent. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Technical success, functional success, early complications, and short-term clinical outcome. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 8 of 10 patients (80%). Among 8 patients in whom bilateral stents were successfully placed by endoscopy, functional success was 100%, the early complication rate was 0%, and the stent occlusion rate was 25%. The median stent patency period was 217 days. LIMITATIONS: Small number of patients, uncontrolled study, short-term follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: We described a technique for endoscopic bilateral metal stent placement by using the newly designed Y stent for advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma that resulted in a high success rate of 80%.