Efficacy and tolerability of various bowel preparations in diabetic patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Background and study aims Diabetes mellitus (DM) is an independent risk factor for poor bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy. Bisacodyl is a stimulant laxative that may mitigate colonic dysmotility associated with diabetes. We hypothesized that adding bisacodyl to split-dose bowel preparation (SDBP) would improve the quality of bowel preparation among patients with diabetes. Patients and methods Adult outpatients aged 18 to 80 years undergoing colonoscopy were recruited. One hundred and eighty-six patients with diabetes were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment arms: 1) conventional 4 L of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS; conventional bowel preparation [CBP]); 2) split-dose of 4 L PEG-ELS (split-dose bowel preparation [SDBP]); or 3) split-dose of 4 L PEG-ELS preceded by 10 mg of oral bisacodyl 10 (SDBP-B). The primary outcome measure was bowel cleansing as indicated by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. Endoscopists were blinded to the preparation used. Secondary outcome measures were safety and patient tolerability. Results Of the 212 patients randomized, only 186 received assigned bowel preparation. There were no differences among the three study groups with regard to age, indication, duration of DM, insulin use, narcotic use, or presence of end-organ diabetic complications. There was a trend toward better bowel preparation quality among those receiving SDBP and SDBP-B compared to those receiving CBP, but the trend was not statistically significant  ≥ 6 BBPS; 67 % vs. 83 % vs. 75 %, P  = 0.1). In terms of safety and tolerability, there were no differences among the three groups. Conclusion Adding bisacodyl to SDBP does not improve the quality of bowel preparation in patients with DM. Further efforts are needed to optimize colonoscopy bowel preparation in this population.

The frequency of histologically confirmed Barrett's esophagus varies by the combination of ethnicity and gender.

BACKGROUND: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the primary risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Limited data exists regarding the frequency of histologically confirmed BE by both gender and ethnicity in the United States. The study aim was to determine whether the frequency of histologically confirmed BE varies by ethnicity and gender. METHODS: The University of Florida-Jacksonville endoscopy database was reviewed for all cases of salmon colored esophageal mucosa from September 2002 to August 2007. Histologic BE was diagnosed only if salmon colored esophageal mucosa was seen endoscopically and biopsy confirmed intestinal metaplasia with goblet cells. Data collected included: age at diagnosis, self-reported ethnicity [non-Hispanic white (nHw) or African American (AA)], gender, procedure indication, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) history, atypical manifestations, cigarette smoking, alcohol use, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, BE endoscopic length, absence/presence of hiatal hernia, stricture or ulcer, and absence/presence/grade of dysplasia. RESULTS: Salmon colored esophageal mucosa was identified in 391/7,308 patients, distributed ethnically as 306 nHw and 85 AA. Histologic BE was confirmed in 111/391 patients with ethnic distribution of: 95 nHw and 16 AA. Histologically confirmed BE frequency varied both by gender and ethnicity with nHw males having the highest (42.3%) and AA females the lowest (12.3%). Histologically confirmed BE frequency differed significantly between nHw males and nHw/AA females only (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Histologically confirmed BE frequency varies by ethnicity and gender with nHw males having the highest frequency/risk and AA females the lowest. Investigation to improve understanding of the impact of race and gender in BE formation should be performed.