Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) with Colonoscopy Is Superior to Enema and Nasogastric Tube While Comparable to Capsule for the Treatment of Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several routes of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) administration are available for treating recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), the most recent of which are capsules. AIM: To assess the efficacy of colonoscopy, capsule, enema, and nasogastric tube (NGT) FMT for the treatment of recurrent CDI. METHODS: We reported clinical outcomes of colonoscopy, capsule, enema, and NGT FMT for the treatment of recurrent CDI according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. During January 2000 to January 2018, three databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Primary outcome was overall cure rate which was assessed using a random effects model; secondary outcomes included adverse effects as well as subgroup analyses comparing donor relationship, sample preparation, and study design. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies (1309 patients) were included in the study. FMT was administered using colonoscopy in 16 studies (483 patients), NGT in five studies (149 patients), enema in four studies (360 patients), and capsules in four studies (301 patients). The random effects of pooled FMT cure rates were colonoscopy 94.8% (CI 92.4-96.8%; I2 15.6%), capsule 92.1% (CI 88.6-95.0%; I2 7.1%), enema 87.2% (CI 83.4-90.5%; I2 0%), and NGT/NDT 78.1% (CI 71.6-84.1%; I2 0%). On subgroup analysis of colonoscopy FMT, sample preparation methods had comparable cure rates: fresh 94.9% compared to 94.5%. Similarly, cure rates were unaffected by donor relationship: mixed 94.5% compared to unrelated donor 95.7%. CONCLUSION: CDI cure rates with FMT performed with colonoscopy are superior to enema and NGT FMT, while those with FMT with colonoscopy and capsule are comparable.

Lack of Agreement on How to Use Antegrade Enemas in Children.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to provide an overview of the existing literature regarding the outcomes of the antegrade continence enema (ACE) procedure and to assess the present practices of physicians worldwide regarding the use of the ACE. METHODS: A search of the MEDLINE database was performed using the following criteria: having a clear definition of "successful outcome," published in full manuscript form, sample size >20 patients, age <25 years. We then conducted a survey among 23 pediatric gastroenterologists and surgeons worldwide who were known to use the ACE using an 18-item questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. Successful outcomes were reported in 15% to 100%. Thirteen studies classified the outcome as full continence (success) or incontinence (failure), with a mean successful outcome of 75.6%. The 23 physicians who completed the questionnaire differed in their opinions about indications and mandatory preoperative testing. Constipation with (78%) or without (91%) fecal incontinence, anorectal malformations (96%), and spinal abnormalities (100%) were considered suitable indications for the ACE by the majority. There was less agreement regarding the required preoperative diagnostic workup. Most physicians (70%) start infusions using saline solutions and do not add a stimulant laxative to the cleansing solution. DISCUSSION: There is a wide variation in the reported outcome of the ACE procedure and in the way success is defined. The survey identifies important differences among physicians using the ACE. Consensus on optimal use of the ACE could improve outcome of this treatment option.

[Analysis of reasons of "incomplete" colonoscopy].

UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to determine the reasons for incomplete colonoscopy, as well as evaluation of results preparation of patients for colonoscopy in a variety of ways, informative colonoscopy depending on the quality of preparation of the colon for examination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The material of this study was the results 104 of colonoscopies drawn from daily clinical practice. To prepare the colon for the study used the most available ways: 1) lavage solutions, 2) castor oil, 2 enemas in the morning and 2 in the evening, 3) enema, which the patients were chosen after consulting a doctor. To assess the preparedness of the colon to the study used a Boston-scale of assessment of quality of preparation of the colon for a colonoscopy". Preparation of the colon was improved by using a water jet pump of the company "Olympus" AFU100. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 19.0. RESULTS: Analysis of clinical specimens showed that in 13 (12.5%) of the observations to intubate the colon was not possible. The main reason is the poor preparation of the colon to the study, which failed to improve even with the aid of a water jet pump.

Patients' description of rectal effluent and quality of bowel preparation at colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: There are few data evaluating how accurately patients can predict the quality of their colonoscopy preparation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether patients' description of rectal effluent predicts preparation quality as assessed per endoscopist. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional. SETTING: Three outpatient endoscopy units at Indiana University Medical Center. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were given a questionnaire assessing their preparation based on the description of their last rectal effluent. This was compared with endoscopists assessment of preparation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Correlation between the patient's description of the last effluent and endoscopist's assessment of preparation. RESULTS: Of the total 429 patients, 59% were male and 75% were white. There was only slight agreement between the patients' description of effluent and the endoscopists' description of preparation (Cohen kappa statistic, 0.067). However, patients reporting brown liquid or solid had a 54% chance of having fair or poor preparation. Ingestion of <90% of the preparation, male gender, use of medications associated with constipation, and comorbid conditions were independent predictors of fair or poor preparation. LIMITATIONS: No validated system to assess the quality of the bowel preparation or for patients to assess their preparation. CONCLUSION: Patients' description of last rectal effluent is not a reliable predictor of quality of preparation per the endoscopist, but patients reporting their last effluent as brown liquid or solid have a substantial likelihood of inadequate preparation. These patients may benefit from additional preparation, which may be particularly useful if it can be administered in the endoscopy unit followed by colonoscopy on the same day.

CE: Original Research: Are Milk and Molasses Enemas Safe for Hospitalized Adults? A Retrospective Electronic Health Record Review.

: Background: Constipation in hospitalized patients is common. As a treatment of last resort for unresolved constipation, a milk and molasses enema is often used by nursing staff. But there has been little research investigating the safety and efficacy of this approach. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the safety of milk and molasses enemas for hospitalized adults with constipation that remained unresolved after standard treatment options were exhausted. METHODS: Data were extracted from the electronic health records (EHRs) of 615 adult patients who had received a milk and molasses enema between July 2009 and July 2013 at a large midwestern academic medical center. Data analysis occurred for a random subset of this group.Participant characteristic variables included age, sex, admitting diagnosis, diet orders, medications, laxatives and enemas administered before the milk and molasses enema, and laboratory values. Serious complication variables included bacteremia, bowel perforation, electrolyte abnormalities, allergic reaction, abdominal compartment syndrome, cardiac arrhythmia, dehydration, and death. FINDINGS: The final sample of 196 adults had a mean age of 56 years; 61.2% were female and 38.8% were male. Of 105 admitting diagnoses, the most frequent (9.7%) was abdominal pain, unspecified site. Of the 14 discharge dispositions, the most frequent was home or self-care (50.5%). A laxative order was present for 97.4% of patients and a stool softener order was present for 86.2%. Sodium and potassium levels remained within normal limits during hospitalization. For the subset of patients who had these values measured within 48 hours before and after milk and molasses enema administration, no significant changes were found. No cases of nontraumatic abdominal compartment syndrome or other serious adverse enema-related events were documented in the EHR. CONCLUSIONS: No safety concerns were identified from this retrospective EHR review of hospitalized adults who received a milk and molasses enema for constipation relief. The findings indicate that this treatment is safe, although further study examining its efficacy in this population is needed.

Comparison of radiologists' confidence in excluding significant colorectal neoplasia with multidetector-row CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema.

The aim of this study was to compare the confidence of experienced radiologists in excluding colonic neoplasia with CT colonography (CTC) compared with barium enema. 78 patients (median age 70 years, range 61-87 years, 44 women) underwent same day CTC and barium enema. Two radiologists experienced in reporting barium enema assessed whether the examination had excluded a polyp 6 mm or greater as "yes", "probably" or "no" for each of 6 colonic segments. Two different radiologists experienced in CTC independently performed the same assessment on the CT datasets. Responses were compared using a paired exact test. Formal barium enema and CT reports were compared with any endoscopic examination performed within 1 year. Studies reporting polyps 6 mm+ in patients not subsequently undergoing endoscopy were reviewed by two independent observers. Radiologists stated they had confidently excluded a significant lesion in 314 (71%) and 382 (86%) of 444 segments with barium enema and CTC, respectively (p<0.001). Confidence was significantly higher with CTC in the in the descending and ascending colon (p = 0.02 and p<0.001, respectively), and caecum (p<0.001). 22 patients underwent some form of endoscopy. Of five patients with proven colorectal neoplasia (including two with cancer), CTC and barium enema correctly identified five and three, respectively. In 56 patients not undergoing endoscopy, CTC reported 17 polyps 6 mm+, of which 16 were retrospectively classified as definite or probable. 11 could not be identified on the barium enema, even in retrospect. Confidence in excluding polyps 6 mm or larger is significantly greater with CT colonography particularly in the proximal colon.

Comparative study of enema retention and preference in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic enemas are often used to treat active colitis but their retention may be limited because of urgency to defecate. Some preparations may be better retained and tolerated than others because of their physical properties. AIM: To compare patient preference and retention of four therapeutic enemas, including a nicotine enema, in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: Twenty four patients with active UC received the four trial enemas-corticosteroid, 5-amino salicylate (5-ASA), and nicotine liquid enemas and a corticosteroid foam, in a randomised order, taking one enema on each of four successive nights. Patients scored them 1 to 4 for ease of administration and retention, degree of abdominal bloating, and for their overall preference. RESULTS: Fifteen patients rated nicotine their overall favourite or second favourite, compared with 14 for corticosteroid foam and 11 for 5-ASA and corticosteroid liquids, but this was not significant (p = 0.302). Overall, there was no significant difference in overnight retention. However, the nicotine enema tended to be less well retained in patients with milder urgency but a higher proportion retained it overnight with more severe urgency (p = 0.031 compared with 5-ASA enema). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in patient preference or overall duration of retention for the four enemas.

Enema prior to labor: a controversial routine in Taiwan.

While taking an enema to induce labor is a controversial issue worldwide, in Taiwan it remains a routine procedure in many hospitals in preparation for birth. Episiotomy is also a prevalent procedure performed during the birthing process. Some physicians believe that enemas help reduce the risk of feces contamination of the episiotomy incision and, therefore, are justified as a routine procedure. This study compared the neonatal infection rates, times to appearance of fetal head, times to first post-labor bowel movement, and rates of episiotomy dehiscence of women receiving a pre-labor enema against those who did not. A total of 534 women classified with low-risk pregnancies were recruited from a medical center in central Taiwan and assigned randomly into one of two groups for a six-month period. The first group (264 subjects) received routine enema procedures prior to delivery in the first 6 months. The second group (270 subjects) did not receive enemas. Study results revealed no significant difference between enema and non-enema groups in terms of infection rates in mothers or infants or in terms of average time to fetal head appearance. While labor duration was the same for the two groups in the first and third stages of labor, the enema group experienced a relatively shorter second stage. No significant difference was observed in times to first post-labor bowel movement or episiotomy dehiscence rates. The results of this study indicate that the administration of enemas as a routine practice prior to labor is not substantiated by medical necessity. However, limitations of the research design suggest that a randomized clinical trial be adopted in the future to explore further the scientific validity of study results.

A survey of colonic pathology with a double contrast method and analysis of the indication for a barium enema.

A prospective study of colonic pathology with double contrast method was made of 146 patients sent to the X-ray department of the Black Lion Hospital, Addis Ababa. The barium enemata were done for complaints like constipation, diarrhoea, rectal bleeding and palpable abdominal mass often without any relevant prior physical clinical examinations. Of those examined only 26 (17.8%) patients were found to have radiologically colonic pathology and the rest, 120 (82.2%) patients were reported normal. The policy of prior clinical examination before any barium enema such as rectal digital examination, sigmoidoscopy and stool occult blood studies would reduce the normal barium enema. The survey compared bowel preparation with adequate fluid intake and laxative without cleansing enema serves as a good method of bowel preparation for ambulatory patients.

The role of barium enema in detecting colorectal disease. A radiologist's perspective.

The single-contrast barium enema examination remains useful for patients with acute diseases such as bowel obstruction, diverticulitis, appendicitis, and fistulas. It is also the procedure of choice for those patients who are too elderly, debilitated, or ill to cooperate with the maneuvers necessary for a double-contrast examination. The double-contrast technique is more sensitive than the single-contrast technique for detection of polyps, early inflammatory bowel disease, and lesions of the rectum. In the older population, there has been an increase in the incidence of colonic polyps and carcinomas in the right side of the colon. This emphasizes the need to examine the entire colon in these patients. The double-contrast barium enema is a safe, accurate, and cost-effective tool for accomplishing this. It is also recommended as the initial procedure in the examination of patients with positive results on fecal occult blood testing.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most colorectal cancers can be prevented by detecting and removing the precursor adenomatous polyp. Individual risk factors for the development of colorectal cancer will influence the particular choice of screening tool. CT colonography (CTC) is the primary imaging test for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals, whereas the double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) is now considered to be a test that may be appropriate, particularly in settings where CTC is unavailable. Single-contrast barium enema has a lower performance profile and is indicated for screening only when CTC and DCBE are not available. CTC is also the preferred test for colon evaluation following an incomplete colonoscopy. Imaging tests including CTC and DCBE are not indicated for colorectal cancer screening in high-risk patients with polyposis syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease. This paper presents the updated colorectal cancer imaging test ratings and is the result of evidence-based consensus by the ACR Appropriateness Criteria Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Effect of three bowel preparations on video-capsule endoscopy gastric and small-bowel transit time and completeness of the examination.

OBJECTIVE: Video capsule endoscopy fails to visualize the caecum in about 20% of patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different bowel preparations on video capsule endoscopy gastric- (GTT) and small-bowel transit time (SBTT) and the rate of caecal visualization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined 186 consecutive capsule endoscopy videos undertaken over a 3-year period, excluding cases with diabetes mellitus or gastric surgery (n=28), cases with unknown bowel preparation and those with unreadable data CDs (n=27). Sixty-seven (36%) patients were prepared with a liquid diet (CL), 54 (29%) with sodium phosphate (PS) and 65 (35%) with polyethylene glycol (PEG). Two independent, experienced investigators examined the videos. RESULTS: No difference was found in GTT among CL, PS and PEG preparations (25, 6.7-116.2 min, 34.75, 4.1-125 min, 35, 6.1-128.6 min, respectively, p=0.29). The caecum was visualized in 56/67 (83.6%), 44/54 (81.5%) and 53/65 (81.5%) patients who received CL, PS and PEG, respectively (p=0.9). In the cases where capsule endoscopy reached the caecum, no difference was observed in SBTT among patients that received CL, PS and PEG (264.4+/-85.9 min, 296.7+/-79.5 min, 291.3+/-84 min, respectively, p=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Bowel preparations for capsule endoscopy do not have a significant effect on gastric and small-bowel video capsule transit time and the rate of caecum visualization.

Judgement of the quality of bowel preparation at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is associated with variability in adenoma detection rates.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy are known to vary between endoscopists. Variability in the technique used and in the quality of bowel preparation may explain this. The aim of this study was to establish whether there is a relationship between the grading of bowel preparation and the ADR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The relationship between the ADR and assessment of bowel preparation was examined using the full United Kingdom Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial data set (n = 38 601). The consistency of the bowel preparation classification was then investigated by six experienced endoscopists (video scorers), who examined 260 flexible sigmoidoscopy cases - 20 from each of the 13 trial endoscopists. RESULTS: Overall, the ADR was significantly higher in flexible sigmoidoscopy examinations with excellent or good bowel preparation ( P = 0.02). However, endoscopists with a higher ADR coded a smaller proportion of their examinations as having excellent/good preparation ( P = 0.002). Video scorers agreed with the trial endoscopists' definition of bowel preparation in 48.9 % of the readings, but they scored the quality of preparation as poorer than the trial endoscopists in 36.4 % and 40.6 %, respectively, in the intermediate-performance group (10 % < ADR < 14 %) and lower-performance group (ADR or =14 %). There was a significant linear trend between the proportion scored as having poor bowel preparation and the ADR ( P < 0.001), varying from 2.7 % in the higher-performance ADR group to 13.4 % in the lower-performance group. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists with a higher ADR are more likely to be critical of the quality of bowel preparation. Training in judgement processes such as non-acceptance of suboptimal bowel preparation is required in order to ensure universally high standards in screening procedures.

Intra-individual comparison of patient acceptability of multidetector-row CT colonography and double-contrast barium enema.

AIMS: To compare the subjective acceptability of CT colonography in comparison with barium enema in older symptomatic patients, and to ascertain preferences for future colonic investigation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population comprised 78 persons aged 60 years or over with symptoms suggestive of colorectal neoplasia, who underwent CT colonography followed the same day by barium enema. A 25-point questionnaire was administered after each procedure and an additional follow-up questionnaire a week later. Responses were compared using Wilcoxon matched pairs testing, Mann-Whitney test statistics and binomial exact testing. RESULTS: Participants suffered less physical discomfort during CT colonography (p = 0.03) and overall satisfaction was greater compared with barium enema (p = 0.03). On follow-up, respondents reported significantly better tolerance of CT colonography (p = 0.002), and were less prepared to undergo barium enema again (p < 0.001). Of 52 subjects expressing an opinion, all preferred CT to barium enema. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction was higher with CT colonography than barium enema. CT colonography caused significantly less physical discomfort and was overwhelmingly preferred by patients.

Adequacy of preparation for barium enema among elderly outpatients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether outpatients 75 years of age or older have a higher rate of inadequate bowel preparation for barium enema and of complications associated with the preparation and the test than patients aged 55 to 74 years. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Radiology department in a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients 55 years or older referred for a barium enema from March to August 1988. OUTCOME MEASURES: All films were reviewed independently by a study radiologist blind to the staff radiologist's report. Patients were interviewed by telephone within several days after the test to assess the occurrence of problems during the preparation or the test. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 213 patients assessed 72 were excluded: 43 refused to participate or could not be contacted, 16 had previously undergone colonic surgery, and 13 were excluded for other reasons. The remaining 141 patients were separated into three age groups: those 55 to 64 years (46 patients), those 65 to 74 (47) and those 75 or older (48). In 104 cases (74%) the bowel had been prepared adequately; there was no significant difference between the three groups with regard to the adequacy of preparation. The incidence of problems reported by the patients did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatients aged 75 years or more are no more likely than those aged 55 to 74 to have problems with bowel preparation or the barium enema itself. Age should not be a criterion for exclusion from barium enema. To try to lower the rate of poor bowel preparation clinicians and radiologists should consider counselling patients more carefully about the importance of proper preparation. Also, the current method of preparation could be examined to determine whether simple changes would significantly improve colon cleanliness.