Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

A randomized prospective study comparing the effect of low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy preparation in China.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and 3 L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) with or without dimethicone on bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study conducted from April 2021 to December 2021, consecutive adult patients scheduled for colonoscopy were prospectively randomized into four groups: SPMC, SPMC plus dimethicone, 3 L PEG, and 3 L PEG plus dimethicone. Primary endpoint was colon cleansing based on Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary endpoints were bubble score, time to cecal intubation, adenoma detection rate (ADR), patient safety and compliance, and adverse events. RESULTS: We enrolled 223 and 291 patients in SPMC and 3 L PEG group, respectively. The proportion with acceptable bowel cleansing, total BBPS score and cecal intubation time were similar in all four subgroups (p > 0.05). Patient-reported acceptability and tolerability was significantly greater in SPMC than 3 L PEG group (p < 0.001); adverse events were significantly lower in SPMC than latter group (p < 0.001). ADR in both groups was greater than 30%. CONCLUSION: SPMC had significantly higher acceptability and tolerability than 3 L PEG, however, was similar in terms of bowel-cleansing effect and cecal intubation time and hence can be used before colonoscopy preparation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence demonstrates minimal impact of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on reducing postoperative complications following elective colectomy. This study investigated the necessity of MBP prior to elective colonic resection. METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted across PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing the effects of MBP with no preparation before elective colectomy, up until May 26, 2023. Surgical-related outcomes were compiled and subsequently analyzed. The primary outcomes included the incidence of anastomosis leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI), analyzed using Review Manager Software (v 5.3). RESULTS: The analysis included 14 studies, comprising seven RCTs with 5146 participants. Demographic information was consistent across groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of AL ((P = 0.43, OR = 1.16, 95% CI (0.80, 1.68), I2 = 0%) or SSI (P = 0.47, OR = 1.20, 95% CI (0.73, 1.96), I2 = 0%), nor were there significant differences in other outcomes. Subgroup analysis on oral antibiotic use showed no significant changes in results. However, in cases of right colectomy, the group without preparation showed a significantly lower incidence of SSI (P = 0.01, OR = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.86), I2 = 1%). No significant differences were found in other subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: The current evidence robustly indicates that MBP before elective colectomy does not confer significant benefits in reducing postoperative complications. Therefore, it is justified to forego MBP prior to elective colectomy, irrespective of tumor location.

Oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Databases for randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing OSS with PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The last search was performed on 22 August 2023. The primary outcome was the quality of bowel preparation. The outcomes were compared by meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs with 4526 patients were included. OSS was comparable with PEG regarding adequate bowel preparation [P = 0.16, odds ratio (OR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.93, 1.51], I2 = 0%]. However, OSS showed obvious priority in excellent bowel preparation (P < 0.001, OR = 1.62, 95% CI [1.27, 2.05], I2 = 0%) and total Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) [P = 0.02, weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.27, 95% CI [0.05, 0.50], I2 = 84%]. Additionally, the detection rate of polyps (P = 0.001, OR = 1.44, 95% CI [1.15, 1.80], I2 = 0%) and adenoma (P = 0.007, OR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.06, 1.42], I2 = 0%) was significantly higher in the OSS group. The two groups showed comparable incidence of adverse events except for a higher incidence of dizziness (P = 0.02, OR = 1.74, 95% CI [1.08, 2.83], I2 = 11%) was indicated in the OSS group. Moreover, OSS was associated with a higher satisfaction score (P = 0.02, WMD = 0.62, 95% CI [0.09, 1.15], I2 = 70%). In the TSA, the cumulative Z-curve crossed both the conventional boundary and trial sequential monitoring boundary and the required information size has been reached for excellent bowel preparation and total BBPS. CONCLUSION: The current data demonstrated that OSS was associated with better quality of bowel preparation. More clinical trials are still needed to confirm other outcomes.

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.

Online Educational Module Improves Knowledge of Nurses on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

The effectiveness of colonoscopy is limited by the adequacy of bowel preparation. Nurses are essential in providing bowel cleansing agents and instructions for hospitalized patients before colonoscopy. This study aims to assess and improve the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy. Participants were asked to complete the survey before and after completing an educational module. The module and survey questions were placed in the NetLearning environment of the hospital intranet. A minimum post-test score of 80% was required to pass the course. A total of 1,107 nurses participated in the survey. Overall, the average score improved from 87% to 93% after the module (p < .0495). Knowledge of the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents improved from 54.3% to 83.6% (p = .0001). Only 56.2% of nurses knew how to carry out a split-dose bowel preparation regimen, which increased to 80.1% after the educational module (p = .0001). Nurses' knowledge about the different ways of consuming bowel cleansing agents before colonoscopy and the split-dose regimen is inadequate. A simple online educational module significantly improved the knowledge of nurses on bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Patient education by smartphones for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: We aim to evaluate the effect of smartphone education on the bowel preparation quality of patients undergoing colonoscopy by meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials using smartphones to educate patients on bowel preparation for colonoscopy were screened from the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases from inception to August 31, 2021. After extracting the data, Review Manager software was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12 randomized controlled trials with 4165 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There were 2060 patients in the smartphone group, including 1784 patients with adequate bowel preparation, with a rate of 86.6%, and 2105 patients in the control group, including 1614 patients with adequate bowel preparation, with a rate of 76.7%, and pooled risk ratio (RR) was 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-1.23, P < 0.01). Eight included studies reported the adenoma detection rate. The adenoma detection rate in the smartphone group was 26.2%, and the rate in the control group was 19.3%, with an RR of 1.29 (95% CI: 1.03-1.62, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Using smartphones to educate patients on bowel preparation for colonoscopy improved the quality of bowel preparation and increased the adenoma detection rate.

Randomized trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol-ascorbic acid for bowel cleansing in elderly people.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The efficacy and safety of the recently introduced low-volume purgatives in elderly people are not well known. Therefore, in this trial, we aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of two low-volume agents, oral sulfate solution (OSS) and 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc), in elderly people. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, multicenter, non-inferiority trial was performed at three university-affiliated hospitals in South Korea. Outpatients aged 65-80 years, who underwent elective colonoscopy, were enrolled. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. RESULTS: A total of 199 subjects were randomized into the OSS (n = 99) or the 2-L PEG-Asc (n = 100) group. Of them, 189 subjects were included in the analysis of the primary outcome (OSS group 95 vs PEG-Asc group 94). The proportion of adequate bowel preparation was 89.5% (85/95) in the OSS group and 93.6% (88/94) in the 2-L PEG-Asc group. OSS was not inferior to 2-L PEG-Asc according to the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -15% (95% confidence interval for the difference, -12.1 to 3.8). Vomiting (11.6% vs 2.1%) and thirst (24.2% vs 11.7%) were more common in the OSS group than in the 2-L PEG-Asc group. CONCLUSIONS: OSS is an effective low-volume purgative that is non-inferior to 2-L PEG-Asc in elderly people. Both the low-volume agents were identified to be well tolerated and safe in the healthy elderly population.

Oral mannitol for bowel preparation: a dose-finding phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Successful bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy depends on the instructions, diet, the laxative product, and patient adherence, which all affect colonoscopy quality. Nevertheless, there are no laxatives which combine effectiveness, safety, easy self-administration, good patient acceptance, and low cost. However, mannitol, a sugar alcohol, could be an attractive candidate for use in clinical practice if it is shown to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety. AIMS: The present phase II dose-finding study compared three doses of mannitol (50, 100, and 150 g) to identify the best dose to be used in a subsequent phase III study. METHODS: The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, caecal intubation rate, adherence, acceptability, and safety profile, including measurement of potentially dangerous colonic gas concentrations (CH4, H2, O2), were considered in all patients. A weighted algorithm was used to identify the best mannitol dose for use in the subsequent study. RESULTS: The per-protocol population included 60 patients in the 50 g group, 54 in the 100 g group, and 49 in the 150 g group. The 100 g dose was the best as it afforded optimal colon cleansing efficacy (94.4% of patients had adequate BP), adherence, acceptability, and safety, including negligible gas concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that the colon cleansing efficacy and safety of mannitol were dose dependent. Conversely, gas concentrations were not dose dependent and negligible in all patients. Combined evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, using a weighted algorithm, determined that mannitol 100 g was the best dose for the phase III study.

Systemic versus Oral and Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis (SOAP) study in colorectal surgery: prospective randomized multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding the role of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OABP) in reducing postoperative complications in colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of OABP given in addition to MBP in the setting of a prospective randomized trial. METHODS: Patients awaiting elective colorectal surgery in four Hungarian colorectal centres were included in this multicentre, prospective, randomized, assessor-blinded study. Patients were randomized to receive MBP with or without OABP (OABP+ and OABP- groups respectively). The primary endpoints were surgical-site infection (SSI) and postoperative ileus. Secondary endpoints were anastomotic leak, mortality, and hospital readmission within 30 days. RESULTS: Of 839 patients assessed for eligibility between November 2016 and June 2018, 600 were randomized and 529 were analysed. Trial participation was discontinued owing to adverse events in seven patients in the OABP+ group (2.3 per cent). SSI occurred in eight patients (3.2 per cent) in the OABP+ and 27 (9.8 per cent) in the OABP- group (P = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative ileus did not differ between groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in four patients (1.6 per cent) in the OABP+ and 13 (4.7 per cent) in the OABP- (P = 0.02) group. There were no differences in hospital readmission (12 (4.7 per cent) versus 10 (3.6 per cent); P = 0.25) or mortality (3 (1.2 per cent) versus 4 (1.4 per cent); P = 0.39). CONCLUSION: OABP given with MBP reduced the rate of SSI and AL after colorectal surgery with anastomosis, therefore routine use of OABP is recommended.

Randomized clinical trial: efficacy and tolerability of two different split dose of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolytes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in hospitalized children.

BACKGROUND: Eighty milliliter per kilogram of polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation (BP) has been recommended, but the amount of liquid orally without nasogastric intubation is difficult to achieve. This study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two different low-volume PEG electrolyte solutions for BP in children. METHODS: The randomized, double-blind, controlled trial enrolled 150 children aged 6-18 years undergoing colonoscopy in our center. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 60 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 60) or 40 ml/kg (PEG-ELS 40) of PEG electrolytes (PEG-ELS) 4000. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used for bowel cleansing evaluation. Primary end point was overall colon cleansing. Tolerability was also evaluated. RESULTS: PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for both whole colon and various colonic segments. The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups. More patients considered the BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60. CONCLUSIONS: Low volume of PEG-ELS for BP has good efficacy in bowel cleansing. PEG-ELS with 40 ml/kg volume was not inferior to that of 60 ml/kg. IMPACT: PEG-ELS 40 and PEG-ELS 60 had similar efficacy in bowel cleansing for whole and various colonic segments. The proportions of patients experiencing any adverse symptoms, or those who were willing to have BP repeated if necessary were similar in both groups. More patients considered BP solution easy to take and be satisfied with the preparation in PEG-ELS 40 than PEG-ELS 60. This study showed that low-volume PEG-ELS monotherapy was effective in bowel cleansing and explored a possibly feasible BP method for pediatrics in China that PEG-ELS 40 was comparable to PEG-ELS 60 regimen.

Colonoscopy in France during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic may have modified dispensing of colonoscopy preparations, a proxy for the number of colonoscopies performed. We therefore studied changes in dispensing of colonoscopy preparations during the pandemic in France. METHODS: Using the French national health data system, we identified colonoscopy preparations dispensed from 2018 to 2020. The expected 2020 dispensations were estimated from 2018 to 2019 dispensations. RESULTS: Dispensing of colonoscopy preparations decreased markedly during the eight weeks of national lockdown: 83,045 colonoscopy preparations were dispensed, i.e., 181,826 (68.6%) fewer than expected. After lockdown, dispensing of colonoscopy preparations gradually returned to expected numbers. Overall, this represents an estimated decrease of roughly 250,000 colonoscopy preparations during the six-month period following onset of the pandemic. This shortfall in the dispensing of colonoscopy preparations was of the same order of magnitude in people under or over 50 years of age, in men and women, and in those in the highest and the lowest quintiles of the deprivation index. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, roughly 250,000 fewer colonoscopy preparations were dispensed during the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. Deleterious consequences on morbidity and mortality related to gastroenterological diseases, such as colorectal cancer, are to be feared.

Comparative Effectiveness of Commercial Bowel Preparations in Ambulatory Patients Presenting for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) is associated with reduced adenoma detection. However, limited research has examined the impact of different commercial bowel preparations (CBPs) on IBP and adenoma detection. We aim to determine whether type of CBP used is associated with IBP or adenoma detection. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated outpatient, screening or surveillance colonoscopies performed in the Cleveland Clinic health system between January 2011 and June 2017. IBP was defined by the Aronchick scale. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to assess the association between CBP type and IBP and adenoma detection. Fixed effects were defined as demographics, comorbidities, medication use, and colonoscopy factors. Random effect of individual endoscopist was considered. RESULTS: Of 153,639 colonoscopies, 75,874 records met inclusion criteria. Median age was 54; 50% were female; 17.7% had IBP, and adenoma detection rate was 32.6%. In adjusted analyses, compared to GoLYTELY, only NuLYTELY [OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.60, 0.72)] and SuPREP [OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.40, 0.69)] were associated with reduced IBP. Adenoma detection did not vary based on the type of bowel preparation used. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients referred for screening or surveillance colonoscopy, choice of CBP was not associated with adenoma detection. Decisions about CBP should be based on other factors, such as tolerability, cost, or safety.

Longer Withdrawal Time Is More Important than Excellent Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopy of Adequate Bowel Preparation.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is crucial for effective screening colonoscopy. However, it is unclear whether higher bowel preparation scores correspond to beneficial effects on the adenoma and polyp detection rate (ADR and PDR) in the adequate bowel preparation group. AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of bowel preparation, according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) on ADR and PDR in the adequate bowel preparation group. METHODS: Healthy examinees between 50 and 75 years old who underwent colonoscopy between September 2015 and August 2016 were included. BBPS scores, CWT, ADR, and PDR were reviewed retrospectively. Predictors of ADR and PDR were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS: A total of 5073 cases with adequate bowel preparation (BBPS ≥ 6) were analyzed. Examinees with good (BBPS = 6, 7) and excellent (BBPS = 8, 9) bowel preparation were 1898 (37.4%) and 3175 (62.6%), respectively. Both ADR and PDR were higher in the good bowel preparation group than in the excellent bowel preparation group (ADR 47.3% vs. 45.0%, P = 0.035; PDR 73.7% vs. 69.5%, P = 0.004, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, CWT, rather than BBPS, was significantly associated with both ADR (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.06; P < 0.001) and PDR (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.02-1.07; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Both ADR and PDR were lower when bowel preparation was excellent rather than good. However, CWT, not BBPS, was significantly associated with ADR and PDR in the adequate bowel preparation group. Therefore, meticulous inspection is important for high-quality colonoscopy regardless of the BBPS score in examinees with adequate bowel preparation.