The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5 %-50 %; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone). RESULTS: CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70-78) for CEBuS-2. CONCLUSION: CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

Novel 1-L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate versus high-volume polyethylene glycol regimen for colonoscopy cleansing: a multicenter, randomized, phase IV study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate bowel cleansing is critical to ensure quality and safety of a colonoscopy. A novel 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEG+ASC) regimen was previously validated against low-volume regimens but was never compared with high-volume regimens. METHODS: In a phase IV study, patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to receive split-dose 1L PEG+ASC or a split-dose 4-L PEG-based regimen (4L-PEG) in 5 Italian centers. Preparation was assessed with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by local endoscopists and centralized reading, both blinded to the randomization arm. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC in colon cleansing. Secondary endpoints were superiority of 1L-PEG+ASC, patient compliance, segmental colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and safety. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-eight patients (median age, 59.8 years) were randomized between January 2019 and October 2019: 195 to 1L-PEG+ASC and 193 to 4L-PEG. Noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC was demonstrated for cleansing in both the entire colon (BBPS ≥ 6: 97.9% vs 93%; relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.04; P superiority = .027) and in the right-sided colon segment (98.4% vs 96.0%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .99-1.02; P noninferiority = .013). Compliance was higher with 1L-PEG+ASC than with 4L-PEG (178/192 [92.7%] vs 154/190 patients [81.1%]; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12), whereas no difference was found regarding safety (moderate/severe side effects: 20.8% vs 25.8%; P = .253). No difference in adenoma detection rate (38.8% vs 43.0%) was found. CONCLUSIONS: One-liter PEG+ASC showed noninferiority compared with 4L-PEG in achieving adequate colon cleansing and provided a higher patient compliance. No differences in tolerability and safety were detected. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03742232.).

Factors influencing the presence of potentially explosive gases during colonoscopy: Results of the SATISFACTION study.

This study tested the hypothesis that bowel preparation with mannitol should not affect the colonic concentration of H2 and CH4 . Therefore, the SATISFACTION study, an international, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group phase II-III study investigated this issue. The phase II dose-finding part of the study evaluated H2 , CH4 , and O2 concentrations in 179 patients randomized to treatment with 50 g, 100 g, or 150 g mannitol. Phase III of the study compared the presence of intestinal gases in 680 patients randomized (1:1) to receive mannitol 100 g in single dose or a standard split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-Asc preparation (2 L PEG-Asc). Phase II results showed that mannitol did not influence the concentration of intestinal gases. During phase III, no patient in either group had H2 or CH4 concentrations above the critical thresholds. In patients with H2 and/or CH4 levels above detectable concentrations, the mean values were below the risk thresholds by at least one order of magnitude. The results also highlighted the effectiveness of standard washing and insufflation maneuvers in removing residual intestinal gases. In conclusion, bowel cleansing with mannitol was safe as the concentrations of H2 and CH4 were the same as those found in patients prepared with 2 L PEG-Asc. In both groups, the concentrations of gases were influenced more by the degree of cleansing achieved and the insufflation and washing maneuvers performed than by the preparation used for bowel cleansing. The trial protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04759885) and with EudraCT (eudract_number: 2019-002856-18).

PillCam colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial comparing two regimens of preparation.

GOAL: Aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of substituting sodium phosphate (NaP) with polyethylene glycol (PEG)-boosters in the protocol preparation for PillCam Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE). BACKGROUND: CCE represents a new diagnostic, endoscopic technology for colonic exploration. Bowel preparation for CCE is necessary not only to clean the colon, but also to promote capsule propulsion. For this reason, NaP boosters have been added to a 4 L PEG-preparation. NaP has been recently related with major side-effects. STUDY: Forty patients were prospectively randomized to Standard (n=20) or Modified (n=20) regimen. Standard regimen included clear liquid diet, 4 L of PEG, and 1 or 2 NaP boosters. In the Modified regimen, NaP boosters were substituted by 1 or 2 PEG boosters; 4 senna tablets and a low-residue diet were also included. Patients underwent CCE and conventional colonoscopy, carried out on the same day. CCE excretion rate, colon transit time, colon cleansing, and accuracy were evaluated. RESULTS: Hundred percent and 75% of CCE were excreted with the Standard and Modified regimen, respectively (P=0.02). Mean±SE colonic transit time of capsule was 2.17±1.43 hours in the Standard group, and 5.32±2.53 hours in the Modified group (P<0.001). Adequate preparation was achieved in 42.5% of the cases, without statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (35% vs. 53%; P=NS). CCE sensitivity and specificity for ≥6 mm polyps were 63% and 87%, without difference between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The exclusion of NaP booster from CCE preparation resulted into a clinically meaningful reduction of the capsule excretion rate that was only partially compensated by the PEG booster.

Evaluation of Clensia®, a new low-volume PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy: Multicentre randomized controlled trial versus 4L PEG.

BACKGROUND: Success of colonoscopy is linked to the adequacy of bowel cleansing. Polyethylene glycol 4L (PEG 4L) solutions are widely used for colonic cleansing but with limitations concerning tolerability and acceptability. AIM: To demonstrate the equivalence of a new low-volume PEG containing citrates and simeticone (Clensia) versus a standard PEG 4L. METHODS: In this, multicentre, randomised, observer-blind trial, patients received either Clensia 2L or PEG 4L solution. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with colon cleansing evaluated as excellent or good. RESULTS: 422 patients received Clensia (n=213) or PEG 4L (n=209). Rate of excellent/good bowel cleansing was 73.6% and 72.3% in Clensia and PEG 4L group respectively. Clensia was demonstrated to be equivalent to PEG 4L. No SAEs were observed. Clensia showed better gastrointestinal tolerability (37.0% vs 25.4%). The acceptability was significantly better with Clensia in terms of proportion of subjects who felt no distress (Clensia 72.8% vs PEG 4L 63%, P=0.0314) and willingness-to-repeat (93.9% vs 82.2%, P=0.0002). The rate of optimal compliance was similar with both formulations (91.1% for Clensia vs 90.9% for PEG 4L, P=0.9388). CONCLUSIONS: The low-volume Clensia is equally effective and safe in bowel cleansing compared to the standard PEG 4L, with better gastrointestinal tolerability and acceptability.

A new low-volume isosmotic polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl versus split-dose 4 L polyethylene glycol for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 4-L polyethylene glycol preparations are effective for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. However, large volume and unpleasant taste reduce tolerability and acceptability limiting patient compliance. A new isosmotic low-volume polyethylene glycol preparation with citrates and simethicone plus bisacodyl has been developed to improve patient compliance and tolerability. AIM: To compare the efficacy of 2 different regimens of preparation vs a split-dose of polyethylene glycol solution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomised, blinded, comparative study, 153 patients were allocated to 3 arms. Arm 1 (n=52) received bisacodyl and 2-L polyethylene glycol with citrates and simethicone the day before the procedure. Arm 2 (n=50) received bisacodyl the day before and 2-L polyethylene glycol with citrates and simethicone on the day of colonoscopy. Control group (n=51) received a split-dose of 4-L polyethylene glycol. Cleansing was evaluated according to Ottawa scale. RESULTS: The mean Ottawa score was not different in the 3 groups. Excellent cleansing was observed more frequently in arm 2 (70%) than in controls (49%) (p<0.05). No serious adverse events were observed in the 3 regimens. The willingness to repeat the same bowel preparation was superior in arms 1 and 2 than in controls (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: New low-volume preparations seem to be as effective as the split 4-L polyethylene glycol regimen, showing a better tolerability and acceptability.

A new regimen of bowel preparation for PillCam colon capsule endoscopy: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a new diagnostic, endoscopic technology for colonic exploration. Current protocols of preparation led to discordant rates of adequate cleansing level or CCE excretion. AIM: To evaluate the effect of a new regimen of bowel preparation for CCE on colon cleansing levels and on rate of capsule excretion. STUDY: 60 patients were prospectively enrolled. The new regimen of preparation consisted of a split regimen of PEG administration and of a 45 mL dose of sodium phosphate (NaP). Four senna tablets and a low-residue diet were also included. CCE excretion rate, colon cleansing, and accuracy were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were included in the final analysis, 13 patients (22%) being excluded because of preparation protocol deviations and one due to CCE technical failure (2%). At CCE, bowel preparation was rated as good in 78% of patients, fair in 20% and poor in 2%. CCE excretion rate occurred in 83% of patients. CCE sensitivity and specificity for significant findings was 100% and 95%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of a split-dose of PEG solution with a low dose of NaP boosters resulted in high rates of adequate cleansing level and CCE excretion.